(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Agenda"

San Francisco Public Library 






Government Information Cente/ 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Fioor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 




SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
uctor of Cultural Affairs 

'0.15 

programs 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

t Commission Gallery 

401 Van N ess Avenue 

415.554.6080 



r://TH ecity.sfsu.edu/sfac/ 
iail: sfac@thecity.sfsu.edu 



NOTICE 



The meeting of the^TREETAETISTS^PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday^ ^January 12, 20( l&lias been cancelled. 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 
January 3, 2000 




City and County of 
^ San Francisco 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

J M ~ 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
p UBL/C LIBRARY 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



3 1223 06447 4191 



^AN FRANCISCO^ARTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
ctor of Cultural Affairs 



").!$ 



l/oo 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

r Commission Gallery 

401 Van Ness Avenue 

41S. 554. 6080 



•://TH ECITY.SFSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
ML: SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 

^ 

Wednesday/Febr uary 9. 200(D > 

3:00 p.m. DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

Art Commission Conference Room 

Suite 70 (basement area) rrp n n OflQfi 

San Francisco, California 

SAN FRANCISCO 
,A G E N D A PUBLIC LIBRARY 

NOTICE: Requests to testify are accepted before the item on which the individual wishes to 
speak comes up for consideration. The Presiding Officer will also call for public testimony 
on agenda items either at the beginning of the meeting or prior on the vote on particular 
items. Public testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. No member of the 
public or witness shall cross-examine another member of the public or witness unless 
approved by the Program Committee. 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE REQUEST 
BY STREET ARTISTS ROBERT AND WILLIAM CLARK FOR 
ARTS COMMISSION TO REQUEST BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS FOR A HEARING TO CONSIDER 
TRANSFERING FROM GENERAL FUND TO STREET 
ARTISTS PROGRAM FUND EXCESS CERTIFICATE FEE 
REVENUE OF 1972-80; INTEREST ON EXCESS CERTIFICATE 
FEE REVENUE OF 1972-80; AND INTEREST ON 
CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE OF PROGRAM'S FUND OF 
1981-99 (hearing continued from 11/10/99) 



In reference to this item, a letter from the City Attorney's office on the issue of 
interest relative to street artist fees collected from 1972-99 was provided to the Arts 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of the letter may be 
obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, 
Suite 70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 




City and County of 
v San Francisco 

M 



II. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR ON ACTIVITIES OF 
STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM 

In reference to this item, a report of January 10, 2000 by the Program Director on 
the special law enforcement services hired by the Street Artists Program for the 
winter holiday season, 1999, was provided to the Arts Commissioners of the Street 
Artists Program Committee; copies of the report may be obtained by the public at 
the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, during the hours 
of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - February 9, 2000 Agenda 
Page 2 



III. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING 



IV. SPACES (At this time members of the public may address the 
Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the 
subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.) 

V. ADJOURNMENT 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view 
of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City 
and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures 
that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations 
are open to the people 's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE 
ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, 
CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE. 



NOTE: The Arts Commission's contact person for the Sunshine Task 
Force is Michele Liapes, Arts Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
240, San Francisco, CA 94102; Tel: (415) 252-2559; FAX: (415) 252-2595; 
e-mail: Michele_Liapes ©ci.sf.ca.us. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the 
needs of persons with disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be 
held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. All 
meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be 
available. Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness 
Avenue and Franklin Street. Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 
from the building. 9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call our accessibility hotline at (415) 554-8925 to discuss meeting 
accessibility. In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public 
meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. 
Please help the city to accommodate these individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon 
request at meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at 
(415) 252-2596 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 
Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE OR TO 
REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE 
AT 554-6171. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the 
San Francisco Public Library and on the City's website at www.ci.sf.ca.us . 

Referenced documents are on file and available for public inspection at 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 240 
during normal office hours. For further information, please contact Michele Liapes. Public Information Officer. 
252-2559. 






SAN FRANCISCO 



/ 



ARTS COMMISSION 






Richard Newirth 
rector or Cultural Affairs 



70.75 

a 



xoce. 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

rt Commission Gallery 

401 Van N ess Avenue 

415. SS4. 6080 



Tr://TH ecity.sfsu.edu/sfac/ 

MAIL: SFAC@THECITY.SfSU.EDU 



NOTICE 



<; 



The meeting of the STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday ^F ebru ary 9, 200(phas been QancelleaT) 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 




City and County of 
San Francisco 






Street Artists Program 
February 4, 2000 



DOCUMENTS DEP7\ 
FEB - 9 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252 









( 



*A 



Richard Newirth 
;ctor Of Cultural Affairs 



1C<15 



SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 
y '. 






OCRAMS 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 
401 Van Ness Avenue 
415. 554. 6080 



://TH ECITY.SFSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
IL: SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



NOTICE 



4. 



The meeting of the STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, 2000 IjAs beerfc ancelled.^ ^ 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 
March 1, 2000 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

MAR I 3 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240, San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 






( 



SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 



') 



Richard Newirth 
tor of Cultural Affairs 



?. 15 



sl/oo 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

ultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 

101 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



'/TH ECITY.SFSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
L: SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 






STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 

Wednesday, 4pril 12, 2000 

3:00 p.m. DOCUMENTS DEPT 

Art Commission Conference Room 

Suite 70 (basement area) APR - 6 20C3 

San Francisco, California ^^^ 

SAN FRANCISCO 

AGENDA PUBL,C UBRARY 

NOTICE: Requests to testify are accepted before the item on which the individual wishes to 
speak comes up for consideration. The Presiding Officer will also call for public testimony 
on agenda items either at the beginning of the meeting or prior on the vote on particular 
items. Public testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. No member of the 
public or witness shall cross-examine another member of the public or witness unless 
approved by the Program Committee. 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 
BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR TO REQUEST BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE SIX (6) SPACES 
FROM GRANT AVENUE, WEST SIDE, AT POST STREET, TO 
POST STREET, NORTH SIDE, AT GRANT AVENUE, FOR THE 
DURATION OF RETROFIT RE-CONSTRUCTION OF SHREVE'S 
BUILDING 



In reference to this item, letters and maps of the proposed relocation of spaces from the 
Program Director to the General Managers of Coach, The North Face, Saks The Men's 
Store, Louis Vuitton, and the Executive Directors of Union Square Association and 
Union Square Business Improvement District, were provided to the Arts 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be 
obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 







City and County of 
San Francisco 






II. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Report on Arts Commission's approval of 2000-01 Street Artists 
Program budget and $22 increase in annual certificate fee ($372 
annual fee; or $93 quarterly fee). (Previous fee increase enacted 
June 12, 1991) 

In reference to this item, a report from the Program Director to the Controller, 
regarding the revenue collected, the costs incurred in administering and enforcing the 
street artist ordinance, the anticipated costs for the year 2000-01, and the fee necessary 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 Agenda 
Page 2 



to support such costs, was provided to the Arts Commissioners of the Street Artists 
Program Committee; a copy of this may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists 
Program Office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday. 



III. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

(At this time members of the public may address the Commission on 
items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter 
jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.) 

IV. ADJOURNMENT 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view 
of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City 
and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures 
that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations 
are open to the people 's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE 
ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, 
CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE. 



NOTE: The Arts Commission's contact person for the Sunshine Task 
Force is Michele Liapes, Arts Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
240, San Francisco, CA 94102; Tel: (415) 252-2559; FAX: (415) 252-2595; 
e-mail: Michele_Liapes ©ci.sf.ca.us. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5 163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.US . 



1 






i? 


s 


F 


A 


C 



/do 



programs 

Civic Art Collection 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

Si Education 

jltural Equity Grants 

S Symphony Concerts 

Public Art 



iTreet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

415. 2S2. 2581 



Commission Gallery 

01 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



^AN FRANCISCO^ART COMMISSION 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 

^pril 12, 2000 DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

Arts Commission Conference Room, Suite 70 add 9 7 onnn 

25 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, California SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
MINUTES 

Commissioners present: Dugald Stermer. Andrea Cochran, Rod Freebairn- 

Smith, Denise Roth 

Commissioners absent: None 

Staff present: Director of Cultural Affairs Richard Newirth 

Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar 
Certification Clerk Antoinette Worthy 
Deputy City Attorney Adine Varah 

Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. and 
welcomed Commissioner Cochran to the Committee. 



HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 
BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR TO REQUEST BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE SIX (6) 
SPACES FROM GRANT AVENUE, WEST SIDE, AT POST 
STREET, TO POST STREET, NORTH SIDE, AT GRANT 
AVENUE, FOR THE DURATION OF RETROFIT RE- 
CONSTRUCTION OF SHREVE'S BUILDING 

Commissioner Stermer stated that the Committee would hear the item 
but would rot take a vote at this time. 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



Program Director Lazar gave a history of his request: The street artists 
who sell regularly on Grant Avenue, at Post Street, informed him just 
a few weeks earlier of the intention of Shreve's to seismically retrofit 
its building as well as correct a street-level leak. The artists were 
dreading the loss - even temporarily - of their six selling spaces 
adjacent to Shreve's on Grant Avenue, six of the most viable spaces in 
the Downtown area. Responding to their suggestions, the Program 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 2 



Director surveyed and drew proposals for the six spaces to be relocated 
around the corner on Post Street, at Grant, where the spaces would be 
divided equally between the northwest and the northeast corners. The 
Program Director sent copies of his drawings with explanatory letters 
to the managers of the stores which would be impacted by the spaces — 
Saks Fifth Avenue/The Men's Store, Louis Vuitton, Coach, and The 
North Face - and sent the same to the Executive Directors of Union 
Square Association and Union Square Business Improvement District, 
inviting all to attend the Program Committee hearing. 

The Program Director went on to say that, prior to the hearing, he 
spoke with both the Executive Director of the Union Square 
Association and the building manager of Shreve's who informed him 
that Shreve's was awaiting its inspection report which will reveal the 
extent and duration of time of the required work. Because of this, it 
would be premature for the Committee to take a vote on the relocation 
proposal; instead, the Program Director asked that the Committee 
hear how the artists and the merchants felt about the proposal. 

The Program Director emphasized that his relocation proposal was to 
be considered as an emergency measure for the duration of 
construction and was not to be construed as signaling a permanent 
designation. 

Commissioner Stermer opened the hearing to public testimony. 

Ms. Linda Mjellem, Executive Director of Union Square Association, 
submitted a letter and stated that her Association would oppose the 
placement of a street artist space if it (a) blocked pedestrian and/or 
vehicular views of retail display windows and/or (b) if the placement 
were not approved by the adjacent store. Ms. Mjellem went on to say 
that Union Square is a "premier retail district" for the city, that its 
retail space was ranked as the 8 th most expensive in the world, and 
that, accordingly, the display windows of its stores are of paramount 
significance. She expressed her appreciation for the Program 

Director's initiative in investigating the extent of the construction 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 3 ' 



project and urged the Committee to defer action until the scope of the 
project is revealed. In the meantime, she asked that the Commission 
look for street artist sites that would not impact the stores' expensive 
display windows. She pointed out that the Shreve's windows on Grant 
Avenue, adjacent to the present street artist spaces, are higher than 
most windows above the pavement. 

Ms. Mjellem said she would be pleased to work with the Program 
Director in finding suitable and amenable temporary locations. 

Ms. Linda Pedersen, Street Artist, stated that she has been a street 
artist for the past twenty years, and that, during the first quarter of 
the present year, her sales on Grant Avenue adjacent to Shreve's and 
to Coach accounted for 52% of her income — "which would be maybe a 
morning's worth of income for any of the stores that" she "would be in 
front of." Ms. Pedersen went on to describe the artists' voluntary- role 
in directing inquiring customers to Saks, Banana Republic, and other 
stores. Furthermore, she stated that "no one has ever had any trouble 
getting past" her "to get into any of those stores or see the windows." 

Ms. Virginia Travers, Street Artist, stated that she has been a street 
artist for ten years and that she regularly sells on Grant Avenue. The 
Shreve's spaces, she said, are very important for several reasons: (a) 
the artists have lost many spaces through the years and "cannot afford 
to lose anymore"; (b) while the artists at the beginning were allowed to 
sell around Union Square, they have been denied the privilege of 
selling inside the Square, only to find that presently two art guilds 
have been allowed to show every weekend inside the Square - selling 
their wares against rules prohibiting such sales and taking business 
from the licensed street artists who belong to a City-run program and 
therefore deserve the City's support. Ms. Travers added that a 
proposal to place temporary street artist spaces adjacent to display 
windows was not an issue because "those stores make humongous 
profits" in relation to the "little income" of the artists. She reiterated 
Ms. Pedersen's statement that the artists "always give" to inquirers 
directions to the various stores. She urged the Commissioners to con- 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 4 



sider adopting the Program Director's proposal for relocating the 
Shreve's spaces. 



Ms. Barbara Huber, Manager of Saks Fifth Avenue, stated that her 
company does not oppose the street artists; however, when her 
personnel looked at the Program Director's maps, they expressed 
concern over three of the spaces being situated in front of Saks/The 
Men's Store. She pointed out that her store has a fire exit next to a 
display window and that this could be an issue if a street artist is 
opposite during a possible evacuation of the building. Ms. Huber went 
on to say that, with regard to the display windows, the store negotiates 
strenuously with designers, many of whom are European; because 
"their whole concept is image ... it's very important that we are able to 
give them the right image" and one of the designers' "major concerns is 
where we locate them in the store and how we promote them." Ms. 
Huber added that her store's customers were generally not the same 
customers who buy from the street artists. 

In response to a question from Commissioner Stermer, Ms. Huber 
stated that her store was concerned about street artists blocking the 
view of her windows for both automobile and pedestrian traffic. She 
went on to say that she has observed that street artists, in their 
present locations, are situated mainly on the side of a store and not at 
a store's main entrance. For Saks/The Men's Store, the Post Street 
entrance is not only the store's main entrance but its only entrance; 
street artists located there could pose a traffic problem. 

Upon request by Commissioner Roth, Ms. Huber showed on the 
Program Director's map the location of her store's fire exit. 

Mr. Marvin Kirkland, Street Artist, stated that he has been a street 
artist for twenty-five years and has sold primarily on Grant Avenue, by 
Shreve's, for the past fifteen years because they "are really good 
spaces." While he appreciated the concerns expressed by Saks, the 
artists, if they are to lose the six prime spaces by Shreve's, should be 
able to obtain six spaces of equal value and should not "have to take 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 5 



less." He added that "traffic coming down Post Street is not looking for 
a store — they're looking for a parking place." 

Mr. Gary Freed, Street Artist, stated that he has been in the Street 
Artists Program since 1987, sells by Shreve's three to four days a week, 
and has customers who look for him there; "if I'm displaced, it will 
disrupt my business." He added that, when he sells by Shreve's, he is 
approached by many people asking for directions to Union Square and 
to Saks, Eddie Bauer, and other stores — "I spend a lot of time being 
an information kiosk," giving directions via his own map which he 
shares with the people - he and the other artists "providing a service" 
to Downtown visitors. During the later hours of the day, the presence 
of the artists, he said, deters the homeless element. 

Ms. Abby Ellis, Street Artist, stated that she has been a street artist in 
the Program, since the beginning, for twenty-seven years and has sold 
only on Grant Avenue for the past fifteen years. Because she travels 
on foot with a heavy display, a relocation to spaces elsewhere would be 
difficult. She emphasized that the voters of San Francisco voted for 
the Street Artists Program, and "this Program has helped keep a lot of 
people off welfare rolls"; she herself raised two children by earning a 
living through the Program. She also stated that the Program "adds 
to the allure of the Union Square area ... and speaks 'San Francisco' ... 
People look for this when they're in San Francisco, and I believe that 
it's not contrary to the stores." She explained that the artists' displays 
are only five feet tall or less, leaving "plenty of room to see the store 
windows." She implored the stores to be open-minded to the relocation 
issue. 

Mr. Paul Weakland, Street Artist, stated that since concern has been 
expressed over "drivers looking for Saks Fifth Avenue's window 
displays while they're driving, Saks might be contributing to traffic 
jams and or traffic accidents; I don't believe drivers should be looking 
around - they should be concentrating on their driving." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that his own question was whether 
people were looking in the windows rather than at the sign of a store, 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 6 



whether they were actually looking in the windows while they were 
driving or walking. He added that "my experience is that the street 
artists don't pose a visual hindrance to pedestrian traffic at all." 

Commissioner Roth agreed and stated that the pedestrians' 
thoroughfare is between the street artists and the stores. 

Commissioner Freebairn- Smith stated that he interpreted the 
commissioners' role as "trying to view what San Franciscans intended, 
as well as our personal opinions, as well as my sympathies for anyone 
in retail." He added that his own architectural practice designs retail 
stores, some of which were located in the area in question, and 
therefore he has "a deep feeling for what the retailer has to do." He 
pointed out that because there are not many streets in America that 
are more expensive than the 200 block of Post Street, "I'm listening 
carefully and trying to balance our social objectives with the Street 
Artists Program and what these very high-end retailers contribute to 
the glamor of coming to San Francisco.... Part of our image as a city 
has to do with the quality of our high-end retailing as well as our 
normal retailing." On the other hand, he stated, "if you just voice the 
interests of, say, the high-end retailer, there probably wouldn't be 
street artists out there on the sidewalk; and yet we voice the interests 
of the street artists here." Nevertheless, the Commissioner cautioned 
against underestimating the importance of the windows to the shops: 
"The money that is spent making visible the products in those stores, 
and the money that is spent on the architecture" of the windows "is 
astonishing"; people "do notice the shops, they do notice the 
merchandise from an automobile" because not everyone in an 
automobile is driving. 

Commissioner Cochran stated that she intended to personally visit the 
proposed site to be in a better position to analyze the issues. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that "with considerable respect to the 
high-end retailers of Union Square ... I'm going to try very hard to 
balance this as much in the street artists' favor." He pledged to "work 
very hard with" Program Director Lazar and with Ms. Mjellem to 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 7 



make sure the artists "don't lose ground." While he was sensitive to 
the issue of display windows, he observed that, from the other side of a 
street, the view of a store's windows is hindered by the constant traffic 
on the street - a veritable "parking lot along the streets" - in addition 
to the parking of vehicles on the street; and "there isn't an RV or SUV 
in the world that's as small as a street artist's space." Like 
Commissioner Cochran, he wanted to visit the site to fully assess the 
issues. 

Commissioner Roth stated that it is important to learn how long the 
Shreve's construction period will be; "if we're talking about something 
that's two or three weeks long, I don't think it's a significant issue; but 
I take to heart that Saks is losing most of their window space, in 
essence, in their opinion" by the Program Director's relocation 
proposal, as the windows are very low to the sidewalk. The 
Commissioner went on to say that she favored relocating the artists in 
group sites rather than isolating artists from each other, but she was 
not sure if this would be possible. 

Street Artist Gary Freed stated that possible street artist sites could 
be made in areas of the sidewalk which are currently occupied by 
newsracks. Program Director Lazar responded that currently two 
newsracks were placed opposite the construction doorway of Coach on 
Post Street and that, were these not there, he could easily locate two 
street artist sites in their place. He added that while the newsrack 
people have always complied with removing newsracks that were 
inadvertently placed in street artist sites, he was not sure what the 
response would be if they were asked to remove newsracks in order to 
create street artist sites. 

Street Artist Virginia Travers questioned why Saks objected to street 
artists in front of their store when, she observed, Saks tolerates on a 
daily basis a performer in front of the store, singing and asking for 
donations. Ms. Huber responded that the performer does not block the 
store's window. 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 8 



Commissioner Stermer cautioned everyone in attendance "not to 
polarize this into 'us versus them' "; he went on to thank Ms. Mjellem 
and the Union Square Association for traditionally working with the 
Arts Commission in the spirit of cooperation. He observed that there is 
"a symbiotic relationship" between the stores and the street artists 
which gives San Francisco its flavor. 

Ms. Huber stated that she agreed and that if the Shreve's construction 
period will be for a short time, she would not have a problem with the 
Program Director's proposal. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth stated that the time of year 
during which the construction occurs is a factor worthy of 
consideration; if the construction were postponed until after the winter 
holiday season, the temporary loss of the spaces would possibly not be 
so significant. Program Director Lazar agreed. 

Commissioner Stermer commented that one possibility for relocation 
might be to approach the Recreation-Park Department for permission 
to use the interior of Union Square. Ms. Mjellem responded that the 
artists presently showing in the square have applied for permission as 
a non-profit organization and are not supposed to be engaging in 
commercial activity in the Square. For the street artists to apply for 
permission to sell in the Square, Sandy Lee of Rec-Park would have to 
be approached. Commissioner Stermer commented that this could be 
investigated and discussed. 

Ms. Mjellem thanked the street artists for their "ambassadorial role" 
and expressed interest in working with Program Director Lazar on the 
relocation issue. 

II. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar reported on the Arts Commission's approval of 
the 2000-01 Street Artists Program budget and a $22 increase in the 
annual street artist certificate fee which will make the annual fee $372 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 9 



or the quarterly fee $93. The previous fee increase was enacted nearly 
nine years before on June 12, 1991. In accord with Ordinances 511-84 
and 383-96, the Program Director submitted a report to the Controller 
regarding the fee revenue collected, the costs incurred in administering 
and enforcing the street artist ordinance, the anticipated costs for the 
year 2000-01, and the fee necessary to support such costs. 

The Program Director went on to report how the Program has been 
covering its deficit for the past two years with surplus fees the 
Program had accumulated, and that, with the adoption of an ordinance 
nearly a year ago making the Program's special fund an interest- 
bearing fund, the Program surplus fees have already earned $5,000 in 
interest for three quarters of this year. 

He further reported that the Program was still waiting for responses 
from the City Attorney's office as to whether the Program is entitled to 
(1) receive surplus fee revenue it had deposited into the City's general 
fund in the 1970s, prior to the establishment of the Program's special 
fund; (2) receive interest on the surplus fee revenue of the 1970s; and 
(3) receive interest on the fee revenue deposited into the Program's 
special fund from 1981-99. The responses to these questions would 
significantly impact future decisions to either maintain, raise, or lower 
the street artist fee. 

Commissioner Stermer opened the hearing to receiving public 
testimony. 

Mr. William Clark, Street Artist, requested the Commissioners to 
postpone sending to the Board of Supervisors any recommendation to 
raise the fee, for two reasons. The first reason was that the current 
year's interest on the surplus fees ($6,500 earned over four quarters) 
with next year's interest (approximately $5,000) could be added to the 
license fee revenue based on the current number of artists (400 artists 
x $350 current annual fee = $140,000) along with the application fee 
revenue ($3,500), and all of this ($155,000) would more than cover next 
year's budget ($148,800). 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 10 



The Program Director clarified that Mr. Clark's projection of license 
fee revenue was based on all 400 street artists paying a full year's 
license fee, rather than some artists paying for the year and others 
paying for only one, two or three quarters. 

Mr. Clark's second reason was to receive a response from the City 
Attorney's office to one of the questions Mr. Clark had asked nine 
months previously: Is the Street Artists Program entitled to the 
interest the City has earned on the Program's fee revenue of its special 
fund from 1981-99? He stated that he had presented evidence to the 
Program Director, who had forwarded the same to the City Attorney, 
which shows that any special fund is entitled to interest on its revenue. 
Mr. Clark estimated that interest on the fund's revenue for the 
previous seven years alone could be $20,000 - a significant amount 
which, when added to the current revenue, could engender 
consideration of actually reducing the fee. 

Mr. Robert Clark, Street Artist, stated that the major hearing on 
changing the street artist fee would be held at the Board of 
Supervisors. He expressed disappointment over not having been 
notified in advance the Commission's Executive Committee's hearing 
on the matter. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth clarified that the budget has to be 
adopted by the February Arts Commission meeting for submittal to the 
Mayor; the Executive Committee reviews the budget for all of the 
Commission's programs. The Mayor, between March and June 1 st , 
works with the departments on the kind of budget he wants to present 
to the Board of Supervisors. During the development of next year's 
Street Artists Program budget, there was a staff recommendation to 
increase the fee in a low amount, and that was voted on by the 
Executive Committee and the full Commission. In addition to this, the 
Controller's office annually asks every department that receives a fee 
for a service to show what revenue the fee will generate, what expenses 
will be incurred, and whether the present fee will cover the expenses. 
At the same time, the street artist ordinance requires that a fee 
increase proposal be submitted to the Board of Supervisors in the form 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 11 



of an ordinance draft. In this concurrent process, the budget moves 
along, the Mayor's budget is submitted to the Board of Supervisors, 
and a measure to raise the street artist fee is submitted separately to 
the Board. 

Mr. Newirth went on to say that the City Attorney's consideration of 
the Program's revenue and interest questions was "extremely time- 
sensitive". He added that he was not opposed to postponing submittal 
of a fee increase to the Board of Supervisors until the Commission 
receives a written opinion from the City Attorney. 

He went on to say that, in terms of fiscal responsibility, it was his 
opinion that to gradually increase the fee and gradually reduce the 
surplus "is the most efficient way of addressing the inequity between 
the income and the expenses." He would be concerned over leaving the 
fee at the same level for three years, while depleting the surplus fees, 
and then having to raise the fee dramatically as, say, a hundred 
dollars. This would "provide a great shock to the system" which could 
engender a significant number of artists dropping out of the Program. 
In contrast, if the fee were raised gradually on more of a cost-of-living- 
increase basis, a shock to the artists could be avoided. 

Mr. Paul Weakland, Street Artist, stated that the reason more street 
artists were not present for this issue was, in order "to reduce the 
redundancy and not to burden the system, the street artists talked 
among themselves and sent the best representative" to the meeting. 
He went on to say that the fee should not be raised until enough selling 
spaces are provided to accommodate "everybody working on any given 
day." 

Mr. William Clark stated the fee setting procedure provided in Article 
24, adopted by the voters, only required the Arts Commission to be 
concerned with the fee for one year at a time, that it was not the 
Commission's "legal or moral responsibility to be concerned with trying 
to balance your budget or creating enough revenue for you to operate 
the Program properly for more than one year at a time." Although he 
appreciated Mr. Newirth's consideration for long-term fiscal manage- 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 12 



ment, Mr. Clark felt it was better to address the immediate fact that 
the Program had about $120,000 surplus which could be used, as it 
was being used presently, for any particular time when needed. 

Mr. Newirth responded to the comments of the previous two speakers 
by saying that (1) to obtain enough spaces to accommodate all street 
artists was not likely to happen; and that (2), in considering the fee, it 
was the Commissioners' and staffs fiscal responsibility to look beyond 
one year. He went on to say that his "main intent in all this is wanting 
to guarantee that the Program continues to exist. I would be very 
frightened if the fee were to jump up" dramatically after not having 
been gradually raised and "we lost half the artists, and then it's a 
spiral" downward resulting in a possible collapse of the Program: 
"That's my main motivation. I don't want that to occur." 

Commissioner Stermer stated his Committee was sensitive to this 
viewpoint. 

Commissioner Roth stated that the Commission had a "moral 
obligation not to bankrupt the Program." 

Responding to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Deputy City 
Attorney Varah stated that her office had been deferring issuing a 
response pending receipt of information from another department; 
nevertheless, after today's hearing, she would inform her supervisor 
that the issue was now "extremely time sensitive" and that a response 
should be issued very soon. 

Program Director Lazar stated that the deadline for submitting an 
item to the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors was May 
3 rd ; if the City Attorney's opinion were not to be received prior to this 
date, the Commission would have to wait until the end of the 
budgetary process to submit its request for a fee increase. 

Mr. Newirth stated that if the City Attorney were to determine, by 
May 3 rd , that there is no legal authority for the Program to receive 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 13 



either interest or prior surplus fees, he would want the Committee's 
approval to go forward with the fee increase request. Conversely, if it 
were determined that the Program is entitled to receive either interest 
or prior surplus fees, he would not pursue it. 

In response to a question from Commissioner Roth, Mr. Lazar stated 
that the Commission could legitimately recommend that the fee be 
lowered if a substantial, amount of money is to revert to the Program; 
but even in this scenario, a long-term projection for the Program 
should be considered. 

Commissioner Stermer asked whether the proposed $22 annual fee 
increase would be "an extreme hardship" for most of the artists. 

Both William and Robert Clark answered in the affirmative. 

Commissioner Stermer commented that, in his own art field, a 
percentage similar to the one being proposed, especially when it is 
amortized over four or six payments, "is not extraordinary." The 
Commissioner acknowledged that the last fee increase was adopted 
nearly nine years ago. 

Mr. William Clark responded that, if the Program were "not sitting on 
the $120,000 surplus, I would say 'You're right in doing it.' " 

Commissioner Stermer stated that it was the will of his Committee 
that the fee increase request be deferred until the City Attorney 
opinion is received. If the opinion is received prior to May 3 rd and if its 
response to the question of entitlement is negative, the request is to be 
submitted; but if the opinion is received after May 3 rd and its response 
to the question is negative, the issue of fee increase is to calendared 
before the Program Committee for further discussion and receipt of 
additional information. The Commissioner added that, in the 
preceding discussion, the Clarks had made some good points. 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 14 



III. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING 
SPACES 

Mr. Robert Clark requested that, for the next Program Committee 
meeting, there be a hearing and possible motion to increase or decrease 
the street artist certificate fee. He further stated that if the City 
Attorney determines that the Program is not entitled to interest of 
previous surplus fees, the argument over a fee increase should no 
longer be "thrashed out" at the Arts Commission but at the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Commissioner Stermer concurred, asked the Program Director to 
calendar a hearing for increasing or decreasing the fee, and stated that 
he would want to hear again the arguments relevant to increasing the 
fee. 

Mr. Edward Steneck, Street Artist, stated that, since the first week in 
January, he has lent money to four street artists to help them pay for 
their quarterly certificate fees. One of these artists, he said, did not 
have any money at all for his fee. Mr. Steneck said that, while he 
himself does well, he was letting the Commissioners know, "on behalf 
of those people ... that don't do well," that any increase in the fee 
would be difficult for such people. 



Mr. Paul Weakland, Street Artist, submitted a letter and a map he had 
drawn regarding a proposal he was submitting for street artist spaces 
in the South of Market area, specifically in the area of Pier 40 near Pac 
Bell Park. While the Arts Commission's lottery system of assigning 
spaces was "the best and fairest system, even in this system there are 
individuals who do not get a chance to sell"; additional spaces would 
help and "will enhance our Program and this area of the city." Mr. 
Weakland included in his letter a list of businesses he contacted "that 
agree the Program could enhance the area." 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - April 12, 2000 

Page 15 



Mr. Weakland went on to say that while the area he was proposing 
was an open-air/recreational/service-oriented area, there was a lack of 
any retail sales there. 

Commissioner Stermer requested the Program Director to check out 
the proposed area during times when the Giants are in town and out of 
town. The Commissioner, who had already been to three games, had 
observed that there was no major vehicular traffic but a good deal of 
foot traffic there. He had also observed much unlicensed selling going 
on. He stated that "it couldn't be better timing" for consideration of 
the proposal; "we should get in there before others do and make a real 
sincere presentation to the Port Commission." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that he works out in a rowboat 
in the mornings adjacent to the proposed area and has observed 
sidewalk concessions there doing "very well." He went on to say that, 
while the stadium generated a high volume of foot traffic during the 
previous week, the volume of foot traffic may decline - this should be 
studied. 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



/ 



S F 



A C 



Richard Newirth 
or of Cultural Affairs 



75 



fa 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

ltural eojjity grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

treet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

ommission Gallery 

>1 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



THECITY.SfSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



£AN FRANCISCO /RTS COMMISSION 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 



y 



Wednesday, ^June 14, 2000 

3:00 p.m. DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

Art Commission Conference Room 

Suite 70 (basement area) JUN H 2000 

San Francisco, California 

SAN FRANCISCO 

.AGENDA PUBL,C LIBRARY 



f 



NOTICE: Requests to testify are accepted before the item on which the individual wishes to 
speak comes up for consideration. The Presiding Officer will also call for public testimony on 
agenda items either at the beginning of the meeting or prior on the vote on particular items. 
Public testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. No member of the public or 
witness shall cross-examine another member of the public or witness unless approved by the 
Program Committee. 

ACTION 
I. PROPOSAL BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR TO REQUEST BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE SIX (6) SPACES 
FROM GRANT AVENUE, WEST SIDE, AT POST STREET, TO 
POST STREET, NORTH SIDE, AT GRANT AVENUE, FOR THE 
DURATION OF GRANT AVENUE SIDEWALK 

RECONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO SHREVE'S BUILDING 
(continued from 4/12/00 meeting) 




City and County of 
| V San Francisco 



(In reference to this item, letters and maps of the proposed relocation of spaces from the 
Program Director to the General Managers of Coach, The North Face, Saks The Men's 
Store, Louis Vuitton, and the Executive Directors of Union Square Association and 
Union Square Business Improvement District, were provided to the Arts Commissioners 
of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public 
at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, during the hours of 
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 



II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO 
ARTIST FEE (continued from 5/10/00 meeting) 



ACTION 
ADJUST STREET 



(In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may 
consider and discuss the funds available in the Street Artists Fund.) 



Continued 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240, San Francisco, CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - June 14, 2000 Agenda 
Page 2 



DISCUSSION 
III, REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program 
activities and make announcements.) 



DISCUSSION 
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

(At this time members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except 
agenda items.) 



ACTION 

V. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of 
the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and 
County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that 
deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are 
open to the people 's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE 
ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. 
CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE. 



NOTE: The Arts Commission's contact person for the Sunshine Task 
Force is Michele Liapes, Arts Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
240, San Francisco, CA 94102; Tel: (415) 252-2559; FAX: (415) 252-2595; 
e-mail: Michele_Liapes @ci.sf.ca.us. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees maj be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodaie these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement s>s:em uill be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ WWW.ci.sf.ca.US . 



• 



SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
ctor of Cultural Affairs 



0.75 
X 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 

401 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



//TH ECITY.SFSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
II: SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 



Wednesday ,^Iay 10, 2000 
3:00 p.m. 

Art Commission Conference Room 
Suite 70 (basement area) 
San Frangisco, California 



* 



AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAY 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOTICE: Requests to testify are accepted before the item on which the individual wishes to 
speak comes up for consideration. The Presiding Officer will also call for public testimony on 
agenda items either at the beginning of the meeting or prior on the vote on particular items. 
Public testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. No member of the public or 
witness shall cross-examine another member of the public or witness unless approved by the 
Program Committee. 

ACTION 
I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE REQUEST BY 
REVOKEE FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW CERTIFICATE 



Juana Andrango Morales - Certificate revoked by Arts Commission on 
March 7, 1994 for violations of street artist ordinance: (1) Selling items 
not of the artist's own creation (2 nd offense); (2) Selling in a location not 
designated by Board of Supervisors (3 rd offense). 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 4/27/00 letter from the Program Director to Ms. 
Morales, scheduling her hearing and outlining the Arts Commission's policy and 
procedures relative to such requests, were provided to the Arts Commissioners of the 
Street Artists Program Committee; a copy of this, with Ms. Morales's address deleted, 
may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, 
Suite 70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 



ACTION 
II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE 
ADJUSTMENT OF STREET ARTIST FEE FOR 2000-01 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



(In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may 
consider and discuss the funds available in the Street Artists Fund.) 



DISCUSSION 



III. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



I 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - May 10, 2000 Agenda 
Page 2 



(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program 
activities and make announcements.) 



DISCUSSION 
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

(At this time members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except 
agenda items.) 



ACTION 

V. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 






KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of 
the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and 
County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that 
deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are 
open to the people 's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE 
ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, 
CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE. 



NOTE: The Arts Commission's contact person for the Sunshine Task 
Force is Michele Liapes, Arts Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
240, San Francisco, CA 94102; Tel: (415) 252-2559: FAX: (415) 252-2595: 
e-mail: MicheleJLiapes ©ci.sf.ca.us. 






ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us . 



SI F 



;AN FRANCISCO /iRTS COMMISSION 



AC 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 



Richard Newirth 
or of Cultural Affairs 



>-75 



\/co 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

iltural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

treet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 

01 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



'thecity.sfsu.edu/sfac/ 
: sfac@thecity.sfsu.edu 



Wednesday, .July 12, 2000 
3:00 p.m. 

Art Commission Conference Room 
Suite 70 (basement area) 
San Francisco, California 

AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUL I 2 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOTICE: Requests to testify are accepted before the item on which the individual wishes to 
speak comes up for consideration. The Presiding Officer will also call for public testimony on 
agenda items either at the beginning of the meeting or prior on the vote on particular items. 
Public testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. No member of the public or 
witness shall cross-examine another member of the public or witness unless approved by the 
Program Committee. 

ACTION 
I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL 
OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST TO THE 
MAYOR AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR EXCESS 
CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE DEPOSITED INTO GENERAL 
FUND FROM 1972-80 



(In reference to this item, a June 17, 2000 letter from Bill and Bob Clark and 
accompanying documents were provided to the Arts Commissioners of the Street Artists 
Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists 
Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70,,; during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.) 



DISCUSSION 



II. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 




City and County of 
\ San Francisco 



(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program 
activities and make announcements.) 



DISCUSSION 
III. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



( 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE - July 12, 2000 Agenda 
Page 2 



(At this time members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except 
agenda items.) 



ACTION 
IV. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of 
the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and 
County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that 
deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are 
open to the people 's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE 
ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, 
CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE. 



NOTE: The Arts Commission's contact person for the Sunshine Task 
Force is Michele Liapes, Arts Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
240, San Francisco, CA 94102; Tel: (415) 252-2559; FAX: (415) 252-2595; 
e-mail: Michele_Liapes @ci.sf.ca.us. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees ma;, be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Si^n Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement ivstem will be available upon request at 
meetings. Piease contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 pf the San Francisco Administrative Code) >; 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.us . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ WWW.ci.sf.ca.US . 




SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
tor of Cultural Affairs 



\. r \5 



/ 



•,$+) 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

iltural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Itreet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Iommission Gallery 

01 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



'THECITY.SFSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
: SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



.NOTICE 



The meeting of the ^TREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday, August 9, 2000 has been cancelled. 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, September 13, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



Street Artists Program 
August 3, 2000 






DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

AUG - 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



^w^iviciv ! o utr I 



S F 



A C 



^AN FRANCISCO ,ARTS COMMISSION 



} 



Richard Newirth 
tor of Cultural Affairs 



x ns 



s/oo 



PROGRAMS 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

jltural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 

01 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



/TH ECITY.SFSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
.: SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



^ 



AUG 2 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



^TREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 

Wednesday, September 13, 2000 
3^00 p.m. 

Art Commission Conference Room 

Suite 70 (basement area) 
. . . San Francisco, California 

.AGENDA 

4/ 

NOTICE: Requests to testify are accepted before the item on which the individual wishes to 
speak comes up for consideration. The Presiding Officer will also call for public testimony on 
agenda items either at the beginning of the meeting or prior on the vote on particular items. 
Public testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. No member of the public or 
witness shall cross-examine another member of the public or witness unless approved by the 
Program Committee. 



ACTION 
I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 
BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
DESIGNATION OF TEMPORARY WINTER HOLIDAY SELLING 
SPACES FOR STREET ARTISTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA 
AND AT HARVEY MILK PLAZA, FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2000 - 
JANUARY 15, 2001. 



The Program Director proposes the same 56 temporary selling spaces in 
the Downtown area as had been designated for the previous winter 
holiday season (including the same 52 spaces as had been designated for 
the previous 7 winter holiday seasons), and the same 7 temporary selling 
spaces at Harvey milk Plaza as had been designated for the last 5 winter 
holiday seasons and the winter holiday season of 1992-93; all temporary 
spaces for the same period of time as had been approved for the previous 
10 years. 



»v 




I) 



City and County of 
San Francisco 



ACTION 
II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE 
OF CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Abdi Mohanna - Certificate #4491. Alleged violations: (1) Selling 
items (jewelry) not of the artist's own creation (Ord. 41-83, Sec. 2405(a) ); 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



m 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 

September 13, 2000 Agenda 
Page 2 



(2) Selling in locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors (Sec. 
2405(b) ). Due to the above alleged violations, the Arts Commission's 
Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director have 
withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Mohanna's certificate pending a 
decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or 
renew the certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 6/18/00 report by the Advisory Committee of Street 
Artists and Craftsmen Examiners describing the items which Mr. Mohanna was selling, 
and copies of photographs of Mr. Mohanna in various selling locations, were provided to 
the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be 
obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 



ACTION 
III. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL 
OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST TO THE 
MAYOR AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR EXCESS 
CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE DEPOSITED INTO GENERAL 
FUND FROM 1972-80 



(In reference to this item, a June 17, 2000 letter from Bill and Bob Clark and 
accompanying argument entitled "REASONS FOR REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATION OF SURPLUS STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEES AND 
INTEREST" were provided to the Arts Commissioners of the Street Artists Program 
Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program 
office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 



'.* 



ACTION 
IV. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE 
ADJUSTMENT OF STREET ARTIST FEE (continued from 5/10/00 
meeting) 

(In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may 
consider and discuss the funds available in the Street Artists Fund.) 



~) 






STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
September 13, 2000 Agenda 
Page 3 



DISCUSSION 
V. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program 
activities and make announcements.) 



DISCUSSION 
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

(At this time members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except 
agenda items.) 



ACTION 
VII. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of *■/ 

the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and 
County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that 
deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are 
open to the people 's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE 
ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, 
CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE. 



NOTE: The Arts Commission's contact person for the Sunshine Task 
Force is Michele Liapes, Arts Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
240, San Francisco, CA 94102; Tel: (415) 252-2559; FAX: (415) 252-2595; 
e-mail: Michele_Liapes ©ci.sf.ca.us. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 

Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the -public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 

boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 

ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to '.1 

the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5 163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us . 



S F 



A C 



- 



Richard Newirth 
;tor of Cultural Affairs 



1.15 



'ujoo 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

ut Commission Gallery 

401 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



HTTr://SFAC. SFSU.EDU 
SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



.SAN FRANCISCO ARTS 



COMMISSION 



£TREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 



Wednesday, October 11, 2000 



. 



NOTE: NEW 

LOCATION: 

CITY HALL, Room 82 



3:00 p.m. 
CITY HALL, Room 82 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
. San Francisco, California 



A G 
f 



E N D A 



DOCUMENTS DEFT. 

OCT - 4 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOTICE: Requests to testify are accepted before the item on which the individual wishes to 
speak comes up for consideration. The Presiding Officer will also call for public testimony on 
agenda items either at the beginning of the meeting or prior on the vote on particular items. 
Public testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. No member of the public or 
witness shall cross-examine another member of the public or witness unless approved by the 
Program Committee. 



ACTION 
I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE 
OF CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 



Abdi Mohanna - Certificate #4491. Alleged violations: (1) Selling 
items (jewelry) not of the artist's own creation (Ord. 41-83, Sec. 2405(a) ); 
(2) Selling in locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors (Sec. 
2405(b)). Due to the above alleged violations, the Arts Commission'* 
Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director have 
withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Mohanna's certificate pending a 
decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or 
renew the certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 6/18/00 report by the Advisory Committee of Street 
Artists and Craftsmen Examiners describing the items which Mr. Mohanna was selling, 
and copies of photographs of Mr. Mohanna in various selling locations, were provided to 
the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be 
obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office. 25 Van Ness Avenue. Suite 
70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



J 



ACTION 
II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL 
OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST TO THE 
MAYOR AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR EXCESS 
CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE DEPOSITED INTO GENERAL 
FUND FROM 1972-80 



25 Van Ness Avenue. Suite 240, San Francisco. CA 94102 Phone (415) 252-2590 Fax (415) 252-2595 



STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
September 13, 2000 Agenda 
Page 2 



(In reference to this item, a June 17, 2000 letter from Bill and Bob Clark and 
accompanying argument entitled "REASONS FOR REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATION OF SURPLUS STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEES AND 
INTEREST" were provided to the Arts Commissioners of the Street Artists Program 
Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program 
office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 

ACTION 
III. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE 
ADJUSTMENT OF STREET ARTIST FEE (continued from 5/10/00 
meeting) 

(In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may 
consider and discuss the funds available in the Street Artists Fund.) 



DISCUSSION 
TV. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program 
activities and make announcements.) 



DISCUSSION 
V. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE 
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

(At this time members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except 
agenda items.) 



ACTION 
VI. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of 
the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and 
County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that 
deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are 
open to the people's review. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE 
ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, 
CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE. 



NOTE: The Arts Commission's contact person for the Sunshine Task 
Force is Michele Liapes, Arts Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 
240, San Francisco, CA 94102; Tel: (415) 252-2559; FAX: (415) 252-2595; 
e-mail: MicheleJLiapes @ci.sf.ca.us. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 
For full Commission or Committee meetings in City Hall: 

Accessible BART station, Muni lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station in Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines 
Serving this location are: #42 Downtown Loop; #47 Potrero/Fisherman's Wharf; #71 Haight/Noriega and 
the F Line to Market and Van Ness; and the Metro stations at Van Ness/Market and at Civic Center. For 
more information about MUNI accessible services, call (415) 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall 

and the War Memorial Complex. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5 163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.US . 



' J Sueet Artists Program Committee | October 1 1, 2000 



iile:///i|/weD itaging/srac/meetings/rrunutes//uuu/st_arts/sam iui luu.ntm 



15 



too 



s f SAN FRANCISCO 
a c ARTS COMMISSION 


^^^^^^^^^^^ 


^^^ 



^TREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, (ktober 11, 2000 

3:00 p.m. 
City Hall, Room 82 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

NOV - 3 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2594. 

^inutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrea Cochran, Rod Freebairn-Smith, Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: Andrew Brother Elk 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Adine Varah, Deputy City Attorney 

In attendance were street artists Robert Clark, William Clark, Gloria Kasek, Marco Kasek, 
Edward Steneck, Paul Weakland. 

Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Abdi Mohana - Certificate # 4491. Mr. Mohanna had written to the Program requesting a 
continuation of his hearing due to his having to appear on October 1 1th before the 
Sacramento Board of Supervisors on a zoning issue. Commissioner Stermer continued the 
item to the next Committee meeting. 



II. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar reported that he had submitted the Commission's request for 



11/ 1/00 11:07 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | October 1 1 , 2000 file:///S|/Web Stagmg/sfac/meetings/minutes/2000/st_arts/sam 1 1 1 00.htm 

additional winter holiday street artist spaces to Supervisor Mabel Teng for a hearing of the 
Board of Supervisors; in addition, Executive Director Linda Mjellem of the Union Square 
Association will, on behalf of her board of directors, be sending a letter of endorsement of 
the proposal. 

The Program Director reported on the major accomplishments of the Program during 
1999-00, which included the Program's receiving $17,600 from various film production 
companies, as per the Commission's agreement with the Film and Video Arts Commission, 
compensating street artists whose businesses in 88 sidewalk spaces were adversely affected 
during film production activities. 

The Program Director reported on the Program's fund balance of surplus certificate 
(license) fees which began to accumulate in the early 1990s primarily from salary savings 
after termination of the Art Inspector's position and after a vacancy in the Certification 
Clerk's position. At the start of 1999-00, the Program Director ascertained a fund balance of 
$137,004 of accumulated surplus certificate fees; this covered a deficit (expenses over fee 
revenue) for the year of $9,779 and earned interest of $7,639, leaving a fund balance of 
$134,964. During the year, the Program Director requested, through the City Attorney's 
Office, from the Controller's Office interest earned on excess street artist certificate fees 
prior to May, 1999 (thedate of the establishment of the Street Artist Fund as an 
interest-bearing fund); and the Program received $17,465 interest for the years 1997-98 and 
1998-99, with clarification from the City Attorney that "any claims that the City violated the 
Street Artists Ordinance by failing to allocate interest earned on program fees to the Street 
Artists Program during the period from the Program's inception in 1972 through May 8, 
1997 would be time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations under the California Code 
of Civil Procedure ..." The $17,465 interest was added to the fund balance of $134,964, 
making a new balance of $152,429 which was carried forward to the current fiscal year 
(2000-01) and prevented a raise in the certificate fee for the 9th consecutive year. 

The Program Director went on to report that the increased hourly rates for the services of 
off-duty police officers have caused the Program to request shorter enforcement assignments 
during the summer and winter holiday seasons. The City Attorney was requested to 
investigate whether the Program has the authority to hire less-costly security guards for the 
summer season to perform the duties of verifying street artist certificates and occupancy of 
street artist locations, leaving the confiscation of illegal merchandise sold by unlicensed 
vendors up to the enforcement of hired off-duty police officers during the winter holiday 
season. 

Commissioner Roth stated that use of the surplus fees would be worthy of consideration in 
covering the expenses of additional police hours. 

m. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST TO THE MAYOR AND BOARD 
OF SUPERVISORS FOR EXCESS CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE DEPOSITED 
INTO GENERAL FUND FROM 1972-80 

The Program Director referred the Commissioners to a document entitled "REASONS FOR 
REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF SURPLUS STREET ARTIST 
FEES AND INTEREST" written by William and Robert Clark and which had been 
forwarded to the Commissioners and to Deputy City Attorney Varah prior to the meeting. 
The Program Director went on to explain that until 1980-81, when the Controller set up a 



1/1/00 11:07 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | October 11, 2000 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac/meetings/minutes/2000/st_arts/saml01 100.htm 

special fund to account for the Program's collected certificate fees, the Program was required 
to deposit its collected certificate fees into the general fund and to request annual 
appropiations from the general fund to cover its expenses in managing and enforcing the 
street artist ordinance. From 1972 until 1980-81, the Program collected a total of $292,071 
in fees and, in contrast, received from the Board of Supervisors appropriations totaling 
$93,522, leaving an excess of $198,549 in fees retained by the general fund. The Program 
Director clarified that this surplus was not the same surplus which was created since the 
establishment of the Program's special fund, a current surplus of $152,429 which he 
described in the above "REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR". He further clarified that 
William and Robert Clark were, on behalf of the Program, seeking not only a return of the 
pre-special fund surplus but a return of interest which had accrued on that surplus; in 
addition, the Clarks were seeking interest which had accrued on the surplus generated in the 
special fund from 1980-81 until 1997, the interest from 1997-99 having been already 
credited to the special fund as requested by the City Attorney on behalf of the Program 
Director (see above "REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR"). 

The Program Director went on to say that in 1987, six years after the creation of the 
Program's special fund, the Street Artists Program Committee held a hearing to consider 
raising the certificate fee, received evidence from William and Robert Clark that an increase 
would not be necessary- and received an admission from the Controller's representatives that 
a bookkeeping error had resulted in the placement of $56,000 of street artist fees into the 
general fund after the Program's fund had been established. The $56,000 was then 
transferred to the special fund, and an increase in the certificate fee for that year was 
avoided. 

Commissioner Stermer ascertained that the topic for discussion dealt with three groups of 
street artist fee revenue: (1) the 1970s surplus revenue ($198,549) deposited in the general 
fund ; (2) the interest on the 1970s surplus; and (3) the interest on the surplus generated in 
the Program's special fund from 1980-81 until 1997. 

The Program Director stated that an issue was being raised that, had the Program acquired 
these monies, the Program might have purchased more police enforcement through the years 
and, perhaps, might have better filled its responsibility of enforcing the street artist 
ordinance; this, in turn, might have helped the sales of the street artists. 

Street Artist William Clark presented his issues and submitted a list of computations entitled 
"STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURE". Mr. Clark 
explained that, while the Street Artists Program in 1987 received from the general fund 
$56,000 in surplus fees it had collected from 1979-80 to 1986-87 due to the Controller's 
1987 admission of bookkeeping error, the general fund still owed the Program its surplus 
fees collected in 1972-73 to 1978-79 as well as interest on the surplus fees collected from 
1972-73 to 1996-97; the Program had thus far received interest on its surplus collected only 
for the years 1997-98 to 1999-00. Mr. Clark requested that the Commissioners request a 
hearing before the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors on the matter so that the 
Supervisors could determine whether or not to approve a supplemental appropriation for the 
Street Artists Program, a transference of the surplus fees and interest from the general fund 
to the Program's special fund. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth clarified that many of the early budgets granted by the 
Board of Supervisors to the Street Artists Program reflected the fact that the Program 
Director's salary was covered, in those years, by Federal EEA and CETA funding. 



11/1/00 11:07 AM 



C I Street Artists Program Committee | October 1 1 , 2000 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac/meetings/minutes/2000/st_arts/sam 1011 OO.htm 



Street Artist Robert Clark stated that the reason the Program Director's position had been 
funded by federal money in the early years was because he and other artists had discovered 
that the Board of Supervisors was going to fund only $400 to the Arts Commission for the 
first year to run the licensing program, and the artists with the Commission's Director 
pursued the federal funding. 

Mr. William Clark stated that, according to California case law, the transference of money 
from one fund to another, or the use of money for any purpose other than that for which it 
was raised, except as specifically provided, is forbidden. Quoting from his "REASONS FOR 
REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL," Mr. Clark stated: "Funds raised pursuant to a 
municipality's police power for a specific purpose are in the nature of a trust fund, and the 
government does not obtain title to such fund but holds them in trust for the beneficiary." 
Mr. Clark said this was supported by two California case law decisions: Gillum v. Johnson 
and Daugherty v. Riley. He maintained that the Street Artists Program represents a 
government's raising funds under its police power. He stated that he had presented to the 
City Attorney's Office, through the Program Director, case law and other authoritative 
sources which stated that, irrespective of statute, a fund raised by a municipality for a 
special purpose is a trust fund. He was asking for the opportunity to present to the Board of 
Supervisors the issues surrounding trust law which, he said, state that if a trustee comingles 
funds with its own fund, the trustee does not take possession of those funds as its own fund, 
because the funds still belong to their beneficiaries and remain intact in the comingled fund. 
As long as the funds can be verified, the beneficiaries are entitled to receive them. Mr. Clark 
maintained that "a special fund is merely a device for accounting for and controlling public 
monies; by contrast with a general fund, a special fund is an independent fiscal and 
accounting entity which supports only one or a group of closely related activities and 
objectives. A special fund permits the least discretion to local legislative or executive 
authorities in reallocating or redistributing public monies." Mr. Clark stressed that, though 
the City initially did not set up a special fund for the Street Artists Program nor make it 
(until recently) an interest-bearing fund, the courts have ruled that revenue raised for 
enforcement purposes constitutes a special fund. 

Mr. Clark went on to say that "the custodian of public funds is said to hold the funds as a 
trustee", and that "the officers of a municipal corporation are trustees in the management 
and application of the municipal funds; and their application of such funds to illegal 
purposes is a breach of trust." He further stated that "the beneficiary - the street artist - is 
entitled to pursue trust money that can be traced into a particular fund or deposit where it 
remains. ... If there is a specific amount belonging to the trust in a general mass of private 
and trust funds, the beneficary is entitled to take that amount out." Citing the Daugherty v. 
Riley case, he stated that "it would appear to be self-evident that the legislature may not on 
the one hand set up a department to authorize, regulate, and supervise business transactions 
large and small, imposing fees upon those affected for the purpose of carrying out the 
purposes of the law, and on the other hand divert the funds thus raised and constituting the 
life blood of the department to a general fund or other general tax purpose." Mr. Clark 
stressed that that was what had happened with regard to the general fund and the Arts 
Commission's Street Artists Program: the street artist fee revenue was diverted to the 
general fund from the beginning of the Program. 

Mr. Clark stated that the City Attorney acknowledged that the City comingled the street 
artist revenue with other monies of the general fund. The street artist revenue, Mr. Clark 
said, could be identified within the general fund and to this day was accruing interest to the 



11/1/00 11:07 AM 



I Street Artists Program Committee | October 11, 2000 rile:///S|/Web Staging/stac/meetmgs/m]nutes/2000/st_arts/saml01 100.htm 

benefit of the City and not to the Street Artists Program. He went on to say that the City 
Attorney, in an opinion rendered on August 14, 1987, stated that the fees collected under 
Section 6 of Article 24 (the street artist ordinance) are not to produce revenue for the Street 
Artists Program or the City and County; neverthless, Mr. Clark said, the artists' fees 
collected in earlier years were, to this day, generating revenue for the general fund. 

Citing a letter from the Controller's Office to the Street Artists Program several years ago 
which clarified the supplemental appropriation process as a means for obtaining interest on 
the early fee revenue, Mr. Clark asked the Commissioners to submit a request for a 
supplemental appropriation of both interest and surplus fees. 

Mr. Clark referred the Commissioners to a City Attorney opinion dated May 2, 1988 which, 
he said, stated that a permanent transfer of Program funds for the use of another department 
would be inconsistent with Section 6 and 7 of the street artist ordinance, and, because the 
street artist ordinance is an initiative ordinance, the Board of Supervisors does not have the 
power to change the purpose for which the fee revenue may be used, absent an amendment 
by the voters. 

Mr. Clark also referred the Commissioners to Section 10.1 17-123, Ordinance 151-99 (the 
ordinance which makes- the street artist fund an interest-bearing fund), which states: "The 
Controller shall cause all funds previously received by the San Francisco Arts Commission 
pursuant to Article 24 of the San Francisco Police Code, Sections 2400-2411 (Regulating 
Street Artists), to be deposited into the Street Artist Fund ..." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked who the "beneficiary" would be: the Program or the 
street artists? 

Mr. Clark responded that the money would go into the Street Artists Program fund and that 
the beneficiaries were the the street artists who have been giving the Arts Commission its 
fees for the specific purpose of regulation. 

The Commissioners discussed the possibilities of the surplus money resulting in payment 
for increased Police enforcement of the street artist and peddling ordinances, a lowering of 
the certificate fee, or other uses beneficial for the management and enforcement of the street 
artist ordinance. 

Commissioner Roth clarified that the agenda was incorrect in stating that the request was for 
excess revenue deposited from 1972 to 1980, that it should state that the request was for 
revenue from 1972 to 1978-79. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth clarified that a supplemental appropriation can occur in 
one of two ways: (1) if it is initiated by the department, the commission authorizes the 
director to request a supplemental, and the request is submitted to the Mayor; if approved, it 
is transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for a hearing on possible approval; (2) on the 
other hand, the Supervisors themselves can initiate a supplemental, but this would not come 
through official action of the committee or the commission; rather, it would come from a 
commissioner contacting a Supervisor to request a hearing on the matter or from a number 
of individuals of the public requesting the Supervisors for a hearing. In either case, the 
supplemental would require approval of both the Mayor and a majority of the Board. Mr. 
Newirth further clarified that a supplemental first approved by the the Mayor would be 
submitted for hearing by the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors and then for 



11/1/00 11:07 AM 



1 1 Street Artists Program Committee | October 11, 2000 tile:///5|/wet> Magmg/stac/meetings/rrunutes/zuuu/st_arts/sam i u i tuu.ntm 

hearing by the full Board itself; whereas a supplemental initiated by the Supervisors would 
be submitted for hearing by the Finance Committee and full.Board and then be submitted to 
the Mayor; if the supplemental were to be rejected, the rejection could be overridden by the 
Board. 

Mr. Clark stated that he preferred to get the Commission's support on the issue rather than 
submit it directly himself to a Supervisor. 

Responding to a request from Commissioner Stermer for an opinion on the claims presented 
by Mr. Clark, Deputy City Attorney Varah quoted from her May 8, 2000 memo to Messrs. 
Newirth and Lazar: "... this memo is to confirm that any claims that the City violated the 
Street Artists Ordinance by failing to allocate interest earned on program fees to the Street 
Artists Program during the period from the Program's inception in 1972 through May 8, 
1997 would be time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations under the California Code 
of Civil Procedure ..." In short, she said, if the question is whether the City has a legal 
obligation to go beyond three years, the answer is "no." This, she said, was her office's 
opinion on the issue of interest; her office did not issue an opinion regarding the 
management of funds. In light of the fact that the Controller had credited the past three years 
of interest to the Street Artists Program, the issue in terms of legal obligation with respect to 
the interest was moot, and the City Attorney's Office, she said, does not issue advisory 
opinions. Ms. Varah, therefore, was not in a position to give her own opinion on the 
arguments presented at this hearing. 

Ms. Varah went on to say that there was some ambiguity about when the street artist 
revenue went into a special account; while some persons allege that it did not happen until 
1980-81, budget documents, according to the Controller's Office, indicate that the special 
account was created as early as 1978-79, and those findings, Ms. Varah said, were 
consistent with an earlier statement made by John Madden, Assistant to the Controller, that 
a special account was established in July, 1978, which, according to Mr. Madden, was the 
date the City's accounting system was updated. Ms. Varah added that the Controller's Office 
had found no evidence to suggest that the special account was created in 1981 rather than 
1978. 

Ms. Varah further stated that in 1979 there was approved a Constitutional amendment, 
Proposition 13, which now required that the City obtain a two-thirds voter approval before it 
could impose any special tax; in other words, she said, before fiscal year 1978-79, the City 
could have taxed street artists - that is to say that the street artist certificate fee could have - 
exceeded the costs of administering the Street Artists Program. 

Ms. Varah concluded by saying that the Commission's decision to request a supplemental 
appropriation would be a policy and business decision over which the City Attorney has no 
role to advise. In terms of legal liability, however, or whether the City is legally obligated to 
credit interest on the early revenue, that issue was now moot due to the Controller's transfer 
of the money under the statute of limitations. 

In response to questions from Commissioner Roth, Ms. Varah clarified that the three-year 
statute of limitations applied not only to interest but to claims of violation of the street 
artists ordinance by not appropriately managing the money. 

Through the Chair, Mr. William Clark asked Ms. Varah whether the collected street artist 
fee revenue constituted a trust fund. 



1/1/00 11:07 AM 



street Artists Program Committee | October 11, 2000 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac/meetings/minutes/2000/st_arts/sam 101 100.htm 



Ms. Varah responded that she was not convinced that it constituted a trust. 

Mr. Clark stated that the City Attorney's statement regarding the statute of limitations 
pertained to "statutory responsibility" whereas Mr. Clark's presentation was not based on 
"statutory responsibility" but on the theory that the revenue was a trust fund. If the Board of 
Supervisors and the City Attorney were to decide that the theory is inappropriate, he 
intended to take the matter to probate court to obtain a lien through equity to transfer the 
money from the general fund to the Street Artists Program fund. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth stated that, while one of the arguments was that the 
surplus revenue should exist so long as it could be traced in the general fund, there have 
been years - for example, the early 1990s - when the City as a whole did not have a surplus. 
Mr. Newirth, through the Chair, asked Mr. Clark whether he could trace the revenue. 

Mr. Clark responded in the affirmative and stated that so long as the general fund had an 
amount of money greater than the amount being claimed, the surplus revenue was due the 
Program; secondly, he said that the courts have held that such money being claimed may be 
borrowed from time to time by "the trustee" so long as it is replaced; if it is not, it would be 
a crime of "embezzlement of public funds." 

Street Artist Paul Weakland stated that he wanted "to compliment the Clark brothers on 
getting the City Attorney to admit" the City "violated the regulations by misappropriating 
these funds ... and admitting their guilt by paying back two years of interest." 

Deputy City Attorney Varah responded that her office did not make any such statement. 

Mr. Weakland went on to challenge the City Attorney's statement regarding the three-year 
statute of limitations; he maintained that the City Attorney was referring to the 
"administrative code" which, he said, is overridden by the "penal code" which has "seven 
years of limitation." He urged that the City "gain back the public trust and confidence by 
doing the right thing, the just thing, and stop hiding by some superficial ambiguous 
regulations that override good conscience, and set the record straight - give the Program 
back what it is rightfully those who paid it." He said that the artists would benefit from the 
return of the money by better enforcement. 

Mr. Clark submitted a final "major" supporting factor of his argument: Section 
10.1 17- 123(c) of Ordinance 151-99, the recently approved (1999) ordinance which made 
the Street Artists Program's special fund an interest-bearing fund. In this Section, Mr. Clark 
quoted: "The Controller shall cause all funds previously received" (Mr. Clark emphasizing 
these words) "by the San Francisco Arts Commission pursuant to Article 24 of the San 
Francisco Police Code, Sections 2400 - 241 1 (Regulating Street Artists), to be deposited 
into the Street Artist Fund established by this Section." Mr. Clark maintained that this 
proved the City had already passed an ordinance which, by the use of the word "shall," 
directs the Controller to transfer all of the fee revenue previously collected into the Street 
Artists Program's fund. He urged the Commissioners to ask, through submission of a 
supplemental, the Supervisors whether that had been their intent in approving the ordinance. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that he wanted to see funds recovered if they were 
due the Program, but that he did not have the background knowledge to assess whether the 
Program's fund was a trust fund. 



11/1/00 1 1:07 AM 



' ! V" — ■>*" 



C I Street Artists Program Committee | October 11, 2000 fiIe:///S|AVeb Staging/sfac/meetings/minutes/2000/st_arts/saml01 100.htm 



Commissioner Stermer stated that the matter turned on the issue of trust funds and whether 
the Program's fund was considered to be a trust fund; otherwise, he said, the statute of 
limitations seemed to apply. 

Commissioner Roth questioned whether the passage of- an ordinance which states that the 
fee revenue should be returned to the Program overrides- the statute of limitations. Deputy 
City Attorney Varah responded that she would be glad to look into what the proper 
interpretation was of the quoted section. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked whether there were many precedents of this kind - of 
fees being collected throughout the City for special purposes and whether the City, by 
common practice, dispurses excess fee revenue among other projects of the City. He also 
asked whether this type of situation had been dealt with by the City Attorney's Office 
previously, and whether it was "a reasonable expectation" for the Arts Commissioners that 
the fee revenue should return to the Street Artists Program. 



'O* 



Ms. Varah responded that the Program had a special set of laws that applied specifically to 
the management of the funds; she would investigate whether there was an analogy to other 
programs. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he was sure that the street artists, since the Program's 
inception in 1972, were under the impression that their fees were going to the operation of 
their Program and not into a general fund; "there has been some money that has not gone to 
them that they paid in." 

Ms. Varah stated that she felt it would be in order for her to return to the Commission on the 
issue of the interpretation of the fee ordinance - whether it would mandate a collection of 
funds previously collected, and whether these particular license fees are held in trust - and 
information about the business license required by the Tax Collector's office. 

Program Director Lazar asked that the City Attorney's Office look at not only the street artist 
fee ordinance and previous street artist ordinances but look at the City Charter and the state 
laws relating to the separation of fees collected for a specific purpose. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he doubted whether there were many state or local 
programs whose members surrendered their dues for twenty years and then asked to get the 
funds back. Nevertheless, he complimented Mr. Clark on his research and presentation of 
argument which, the Commissioner said, was "awfully compelling to a lay person, to me." 
He added that personally he saw merit in attempting to retrieve the street artist revenue. 

Commissioner Cochran stated that she saw merit in going through the supplemental 
appropriation procedure. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth clarified that, while there were certain legal questions, 
there were policy questions, and the policy questions rested with the Commission; therefore, 
the Commission, in making a policy decision, would need to direct the Director of Cultural 
Affairs -to request a supplemental appropriation from the Mayor. 

Commissioner Stermer responded that, at the present time, he was not prepared to either 
vote to direct the Director of Cultural Affairs to request a supplemental or to contact a 



.r\-i \ \ i 



.:.»>■ 



Street Artists Program Committee | October 1 1, 2000 rile:///b|/Web 5>taging/stac/meetings/rrunutes/2UUU/st_arts/samlUl lUU.htm 

Supervisor for a hearing without receiving more information from the City Attorney. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated his own question to the City Attorney: "Are the funds 
identified here legally the Program's?" 

The Commissioners submitted the following questions to Ms. Varah for response at a 
subsequent meeting: 

1) Do the funds collected under Article 24, from 1972 to the present, constitute a trust fund 
and shall only be used for the purposes for which they were raised? 

2) Does Section 10.1 17- 123(c) of Ordinance 151-99 (Street Artists Fund) mandate that all 
fees collected previously by the Street Artists Program be deposited into the Program's 
fund? 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked Ms. Varah whether there existed a conflict of interest 
for the City Attorney by protecting the City against claims and also representing the Arts 
Commission in attempting to retrieve its surplus funds. 

Ms. Varah responded that the Arts Commission as an arm of the City - a part of the same 
body - was not in a position to make a legal claim against the City; the courts would not be 
the proper forum to seek the previous funds because the City could not make a claim against 
itself. 

Program Director Lazar asked whether this posed a question of jurisdiction subject to a 
determination by the City Attorney. He cited as an example a jurisdictional dispute over 
twenty-five years ago between the Arts Commission and the Airport Commission over 
whether the civic design power of the Arts Commission could preside over the choice of 
carpet inside the airport; the City Attorney reviewed the matter and (it was Mr. Lazar's 
understanding) determined in an opinion that the Arts Commission did not have such 
jurisdiction inside the airport. Similarly, in the present case, wouldn't the question of 
whether the surplus fees belonged to the general fund or the street artists fund be a 
jurisdictional question to be determined by the City Attorney? 

Ms. Varah responded that she was not familiar with the Arts Commission-Airport 
Commission case, and that she felt that the two main questions submitted by the 
Commissioners were a good place to start which could yield information useful to the 
Commission in making its policy and business decisions. She reiterated that her office was 
not authorized to make policy or business decisions for the Commission. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that there was one scenario that would warrant a policy 
decision - authorizing the Director of Cultural Affairs to proceed with a supplemental 
appropriation request. Other than that, he perceived that the Commissioners would either 
not act at all or would act as private citizens. The Commissioners, he told Ms. Varah, just 
needed more information. 

IV HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENT OF STREET 
ARTIST FEE (continued from 5/10/00 meeting) 

Program Director Lazar referred the Commissioners to a two-page document written by 
William and Robert Clark, entitled "REASONS FOR REDUCING THE FEE FOR A ' 



11/1/00 11:07 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | October 1 1, 2000 file:///S|AVeb Staging/sfac/meetings/minutes/2000/st_arts/saml01 100.htm 

STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE," which had been mailed to the Commissioners. 

Street Artist William Clark stated that, at a previous Program Committee meeting when this 
issue was discussed, Deputy City Attorney Varah had commented that there was no 
language in Article 24 that required the Arts Commission to apply the surplus funds to the 
following year's revenue and that California Constitution Article XIII(B), Section 5, gave 
the Arts Commission authority to create a contingency fund. After hearing this, Mr. Clark 
re-read Article 24 and found language that seemed to limit the amount of funds that should 
be credited to the Arts Commission. He further stated that Article 24 was passed by the 
Board of Supervisors as clarifying legislation of Proposition "L" (passed by the voters of the 
November, 1975 election); Article 24, therefore, clarified the policies intended by 
Proposition "L." Mr. Clark referred to Section 2404.1.1: "...The funds credited to the Arts 
Commission pursuant to this section in combination with funds derived from Section 2404.1 
and Section 2410 shall not exceed the actual cost to the Arts Commission of administering 
and enforcing Proposition "L" and this Article. Mr. Clark stated that the Commissioners 
could determine the Program's cost one fiscal year at a time, and therefore they could only 
discuss the present cost of $148,000. 

Mr. Clark went on to say that in Section 2404.2 - the fee setting procedure - states that "the 
fee set" (by the Board of Supervisors) "shall be equal to, but not greater than, the fees 
necessary to support the costs of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Street 
Artist Ordinance." Mr. Clark also pointed to Section 10.02 of the Administrative Code - 
cash reserve fund and supplemental appropriation - which states "such unused and 
unencumbered appropriations balance and revenue collections in excess of revenue 
estimates ... when not transferred to the cash reserve fund ... shall be held as surplus. ... Such 
surplus shall be taken into account as revenue of the ensuing fiscal year." 

Mr. Clark asked that a hearing be held before the Board of Supervisors to look at the 
Program's financial situation with its surplus, as well as the controlling laws as to whether a 
fee reduction is mandatory and, if so, to determine the extent of the fee reduction. Mr. Clark 
emphasized that he was not asking the Commissioners to propose a figure; he was simply 
requesting a Board of Supervisors hearing. 

Mr. Clark stated that while Article XIII(B), Section 5, of the California Constitution allows 
for a municipality to create contingency and other funds for the benefit of the city, Section 
2(b) states "all revenues received by an entity of government in excess of the amount which 
may be appropriated by the entity in compliance with this Article during the fiscal year 
immediately following it shall be returned by a revision of tax rates or fee schedules within 
the next two subsequent fiscal years." 

Program Director Lazar reported that last March he met with the City Attorney's Office on 
the question of whether the Arts Commission is required to use up all of its surplus to offset 
the fee of an ensuing year, and he was told that, while the Commission may do so, it was not 
required to do so. 

Commissioner Stermer asked the Program Director whether, in his opinion, the current fee 
was adequate to support the Program's costs and whether he foresaw any expense that would 
warrant raising the fee. 



■^ 



Mr. Lazar responded that, in light of the current surplus and the fact that it now earns 
interest, the fee was adequate and could accommodate the steady increase in the Program's 



1/1/00 11:07 AM 



Stieet Artists Program Committee | October 11, 2000 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac/meetings/minutes/2000/st_arts/saml01 100.htm 

costs, and that a fee increase could probably be held off for another three years. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth stated that, whatever the legislation says, to be fiscally 
responsible, the Program and its Program Director should develop a five-year plan 
predicated on the present surplus, so that, at the end of five years,, the fee is supporting the 
expenses and that there is neither a surplus nor a deficit. Mr. Newirth stressed that it was 
very important that the Program get to that point in some manner; otherwise, wildly 
differing policy decisions on the fee amount could have unpredictable consequences. It 
would be "better to be proactive and develop a plan" to present to the Commissioners. 

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that the City Attorney opinion of August 14, 1987 clarified 
that fees collected under Section 6 of Article 24 were not to produce revenue for the Street 
Artists Program or the City and County of San Francisco. He asked that the issue be 
continued to the following month to enable the Clarks to -present further information. 

Mr. Newirth stated that there was a philosophical as well as legal issue in considering who 
the beneficiary would be if the Program used up all of its surplus in a given year: would it be 
the existing street artists, or would it be the street artists who were in the Program when the 
surplus was accrued? 

Commissioner Cochran stated that it appeared from the revenue vs. expenses figures that the 
Program had been operating in a deficit for the last two years, and that she would like to 
receive a projection of what the current year's deficit would be, as well as a five-year plan 
predicated on the present surplus. 

Commissioner Cochran moved that the Program Director prepare a report on the previous 
five years and a projection for the next five years of expenditures and revenues of the Street 
Artists Program for a determination on adjusting the street artist certificate fee; the motion 
was seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

Street Artist William Clark stated that Section 2404.2 of Article 24 provides that the Board 
of Supervisors "shall" by ordinance establish or readjust the fee, and the fee "shall" be equal 
to, but not greater than, the fees necessary to support the costs. He went on to say that if the 
fee were left as it is at $350 a year, it would be a total cost of $700 over two years for an 
artist; if the fee were reduced - which, he said, the law requires - to a minimum fee based on 
the current surplus, an applicant for a certificate could be told by the Program staff that 
his/her fee would be reduced for the first year, making a significant savings for the artist, 
then raised for the second year based on the cost of the Program. 

Mr. Newirth stated that it appeared that certain clarifications in the legislation needed to be 
made because there were many ambiguities. 

The Commissioners observed that the meeting had exceeded its time allotment for use of 
Room 82, and that a group of people, who had reserved the room, were waiting to use it. 

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 

Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



1/1/00 11:07 AM 




SAN FRANCISCO/RTS COMMISSION 



7 



) 



Richard Newirth 
or of Cultural Affairs 



0-75 



•/' 



OO 



:IIk\ 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Desicn Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Puilic Art 

htural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Jtreet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

t Commission Gallery 

401 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



HTT!-://SFAC. SFSU.EDU 
: SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



) 




and County of 
San Francisco. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

NOV - 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOTICE 



The meeting of the JTREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday^ovember 8, 2000 has been cancelled. 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, December 13, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 



November 3, 2000 



Ness A\ 



240. San Francisco. CA q 4102 Phone (4151 252-25^0 



4 1 5 i 2 5 2-25' 



^v 



S F 



A C 



Richard Newirth 
Director of Cultural Affairs 



0*15 



£A 



N FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 



O 



( /3/o0 



PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Puslic Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Art Commission Gallery 

401 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



htti\//th ecity.sfsu.edu/sfac/ 
email: sfac@thecity.sfsu.edu 



NOTICE 



The meeting of the^STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday, Pecember 13, 2000 has been cancelled. 



The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, January 10, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 
November 27, 2000 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

dec i 3 ;.::3 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



> 



; 



S F 



A C 



> 



AN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 

4 



Richard Newirth 
or of Cultural Affairs 



75 



01 



\x* 



Lt/Jl 

PROGRAMS 



Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

ltural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

treet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 

)1 Van Ness Avenue 

41S. 554. 6080 



^NOTICE 



The meeting of the^TREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday, /January 10, 2001 has been cancelled. 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



THECITY.SFSU.EDU/SfAC/ 
SFAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



) 



Street Artists Program 
December 28, 2000 




City and County of 
\ San Francisco 



OOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN - 9 2001 

N FRANCISCO 
VHUC LIBRARY 






25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



treet Artists Committee | February 14, ZULU 



nie:///0|/ weo itaging/srac.srsu.eau/meeungs/agenua/zuui/si_aus/saa_u/. iwi .mim 




16 



oi 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, February 14, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 






DOCUMENTS DEP" 

FEB - S I 



SAN FRANCISCO 

25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA, pi idi ip j idradv 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2594. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

Agenda 



I. HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE MOTIONS TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

ACTION 

Abdi Mohana - Certificate # 4491. Alleged violations: (1) Selling items (jewelry) not of 
the artist's own creation (Ord. 41-83, Sec. 2405(a) ); (2) Selling in locations not designated 
by the Board of Supervisors (Sec. 2405(b) ). Due to the above alleged violations, the Arts 
Commission's Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director have 
withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Mohanna's certificate pending a decision by the Street 
Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 6/18/00 report by the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and 
Craftsmen Examiners describing the items which Mr. Mohanna was selling, and copies of photographs of Mr. 
Mohanna in various selling locations, were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program 
Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness 
Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 

Mohamed H. Ahmed - Certificate #5600. Alleged violations: (1) Selling items 

(Egyptian-style paintings/prints; beadwoven doilies) not certified by the Arts Commission 



2/7/01 11:35 AM 



FAC | Street Artists Committee ] February 14, 2001 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/agenda/2001/st_arts/saa_021401.ht | 

and not of the artist's own creation (Ord. 41-83, Sec. 2405(a) ); (2) Selling in locations not 
designated by the Board of Supervisors (Sec. 2405(b) ); (3) Exceeding display length 
regulation (Sec. 2405(c)(4) ). Due to the above alleged violations, the Arts Commission's 
Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director have withheld issuing 
or renewing Mr. Ahmed's certificate pending a decision by the Street Artists Program 
Committee on whether to issue or renew the certificate. 



4 



(In reference to this item, copies of a "CHRONOLOGY OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS" compiled by the 
Program Director regarding Mr. Ahmed's alleged violations, and copies of excerpts of "INSPECTOR'S 
LOGBOOK" relative to the incidents of Mr. Ahmed's alleged violations were provided to the Commissioners 
of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists 
Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENT OF STREET 
ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE (continued from 10/11/00 meeting) 

In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may 
consider and discuss the funds available in the Street Artists Fund. 

(In reference to this item, the full Arts Commission in Resolution No. 1 106-00-417, on November 6, 2000, 
authorized the Street Artists Program Director "to prepare a report on the previous five years and a projection 
for the next five years of expenditures and revenues of the Street Artists Program for a determination on 
adjusting the street artist certificate fee." In accord with this resolution, the Program Director's report was 
provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of the report may be obtained 
by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

(Also in reference to this item, copies of an October 2, 2000 paper and a November 8, 2000 paper by Bill and 
Bob Clark entitled "REASONS FOR REDUCING THE FEE FOR A STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE" and 
"ADDITIONAL REASON WHY SURPLUS FUNDS AT END OF FISCAL YEAR MUST BE CARRIED 
OVER AND USED AS REVENUE IN THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR" were 
provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by 
the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
IE. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST TO THE MAYOR AND BOARD 
OF SUPERVISORS FOR EXCESS CERTIFICATE FEEE REVENUE DEPOSITED 
INTO GENERAL FUND FROM 1972-80 (continued from 10/1 1/00 meeting) 

(In reference to this item, a June 17, 2000 letter from Bill and Bob Clark and accompanying paper entitled 
"REASONS FOR REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF SURPLUS STREET 
ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEES AND INTEREST" were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists 
Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 
Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

DISCUSSION 
IV. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
V. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 



of 3 2/7/01 II ;s 



Street Artists Committee | February 14, 2001 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/agenda/2001/st_arts/saa_02 1401. html 

PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
VI. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
Revision Date 



2/7/01 11:35 AM 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5163or by email 
at Donna Hall@CJ.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.US . 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 



Page 1 of 16 




^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, February 14, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2594. 

^Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrew Brother Elk, Andrea Cochran, Rod 
Freebairn- Smith, Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: None 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Adine Varah, Deputy City Attorney 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 



I. HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE MOTIONS TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Abdi Mohana - Certificate # 4491. Alleged violations: (1) Selling items (jewelry) 
not of the artist's own creation(Ord. 41-83, Sec. 2405(a) ); (2) Selling in locations not 
designated by the Board of Supervisors (Sec. 2405(b) ). (Due to the above alleged 
violations, the Arts Commission's Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists 
Program Director withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Mohana's certificate pending a 
decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the 
certificate.) 



http ://sfac. sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam02 1 400.htm 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 2 of 16 



Program Director Lazar submitted to the Committee a June 18, 2000 report by 
Mathew Porkola, Chairman of the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and 
Craftsmen Examiners, which observed that "it was hard to find anything on" Abdi 
Mohana's "display that wasn't commercially manufactured, including cast rings, cast 
small pendants and earrings, numerous commercial chains with nothing on them, and 
stamped metal pendants or pins. ..." After receiving this report, the Program Director 
on July 14, 2000 sent Mr. Mohana a "NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL PENDING HEARING (Charge of Serious Violation 
of Street Artist Ordinance)". Following this, on August 7, 2000 the Program Director 
himself observed Mr. Mohana selling commercially manufactured silver pendants and 
rings that were similar to ones photographed by the Program Director on Mr. 
Mohana's table four years before, in 1996, and for which Mr. Mohana had received a 
written warning (October 10, 1996). 

The Program Director submitted to the Committee a copy of the 1996 warning and 
the accompanying photographs of Mr. Mohana's display at that time. The Program 
Director also submitted a laser copy of a photo dated June 10, 2000 which he had just 
received prior to the hearing and which showed Mr. Mohana and his table displaying 
what the Program Director stated was commercially manufactured jewelry similar to 
that depicted in the 1996 photos and to that described by Advisory Committee 
Chairman Porkola on June 18, 2000. 

Advisory Committee Chairman Porkola testified to his written report, examined the 
Program Director's 1996 photos and the recently received June 10, 2000 photo, and 
stated that the photographs showed merchandise similar to that which he and 
Advisory Committee Marcia Weisbrot observed on Mr. Mohana's table on June 18, 
2000; on that day, he stated, "there was a great deal of commercially manufactured 
silver chain without any beads or pendants ... There was a small amount of beadcraft 
that might well have been made by the artist, but I would say more than ninety per 
cent of what the display consisted of was commercially manufactured chain, 
obviously commercially stamped or cast pendants, rings, items of that nature." Mr. 
Porkola went on to say that when he and Ms. Weisbrot spoke to Mr. Mohana about 
the items, "he didn't make any attempt to make any excuses about it ..." 

In response to questions from Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Porkola stated that he had 
twenty years of experience qualifying him in ability to discern commercially 
manufactured jewelry from jewelry handmade in the Street Artists Program, and that 
Mr. Mohana's merchandise "was the type of thing that we've often seen at the Gift 
Center; we occasionally go through the Gift Center just to see what's available 
commercially. ..." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar stated 
that selling items not created by the artist is considered a very serious violation of the 
street artist ordinance, that the heart of the ordinance requires a screening,before a 
license is issued, of an applicant's wares in order to verify that the applicant is making 
his or her own work, and that the Arts Commission stands behind that verification 
when it certifies (licenses) an applicant to sell his or her wares. 

Mr. Porkola went on to testify that the items he observed on Mr. Mohana's table did 
not correspond with the items he had presented at his screening. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam02 1 400.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 3 of 16 



Program Director Lazar corroborated this by saying the rings Mr. Mohana 
demonstrated making at his screening were not of the "sculptural quality" exhibited in 
the rings he had been observed selling. 

With respect to the second charge, the Program Director outlined a chronology of five 
reported incidents of Mr. Mohana allegedly selling in locations not designated by the 
Board of Supervisors, all five incidents occuring on the south side of Jefferson Street, 
Hyde to Leavenworth Streets, in the proximity of the legal selling spaces near The 
Cannery and the Wharfside buildings. A telephone report from a witness alleging that 
Mr. Mohana sold illegally on August 30, 1997, caused the Program Director to send 
him a written warning; a FAXed report by a witness alleging that Mr. Mohana sold 
illegally on October 16 and 17, 1999, caused the Director of Cultural Affairs and the 
Program Director to send him a "NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECOMMEND 
DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL", granting him an opportunity to meet 
with the Program Director on what the Arts Commission considers a "minor 
violation" (with such meeting unable to be scheduled due to conflicting schedules); 
and the submittal by a witness of laser-photos of Mr. Mohana allegedly selling 
illegally on June 10 and 11, 2000, caused the Director of Cultural Affairs and the 
Program Director to send him a "NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF CERTIFICATE 
OR RENEWAL PENDING HEARING (Charge of Serious Violation of Street Artist 
Ordinance)" which offered no meeting with the Program Director because this notice 
resulted also from the Advisory Committee June 18, 2000 report on what Mr. 
Mohana was selling. The Program Director submitted the laser-photos to the Program 
Committee for examination and identified the non-designated locations allegedly 
occupied by Mr. Mohana as depicted in the photos. 

Commissioner Brother Elk observed that "if someone is selling in an illegal position, 
that not only disturbs the shopowners but it also disturbs the fellow artists who are 
following rules," to which Commissioner Roth added: "And the Police who want the 
sidewalk clear" and Commisioner Stermer added: "And presumably pedestrians who 
are walking by." The Commissioners further acknowledged that Jefferson Street was 
under the jurisdiction of the Port Commission and that any artist's selling in illegal 
locations on Jefferson Street could possibly jeopardize the future of Jefferson Street's 
legal spaces. 

Mr. Mohana stated: "I accept the charges. I've been a street artist for the past twenty 
years ... This is the first time I'm before you ... I unfortunately don't have a good 
explanation ... for what I've done; and I apologize." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that while the apology was noted, it was "misdirected; 
if I were a street artist, I'd think that you owe me an apology ... because I make my 
own wares, I follow the rules, I take my chances at the lottery, and I would resent 
having to compete with somebody who doesn't spend the time making his own stuff 
and just sets up anywhere he feels like." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar stated 
that, according to the Arts Commission's standardized penalties for street artist 
violations, a first-time finding of violation for selling items not of the artist's own 
creation merits a two-month suspension of certificate, and a first-time finding of 
violation for selling in locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors merits a 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 4 of 16 

three-week suspension. The Program Committee has the authority to mitigate or 
increase the standard penalties on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the Program 
Committee has the authority to split a suspension period into two or more periods, as 
well as to defer a suspension period to a later time of year. 

Commissioner Cochran stated that the warnings which Mr. Mohana had received 
were "not enough" to curtail his unauthorized activities. 

Commissioner Brother Elk asked Mr. Mohana what he thought the appropriate 
penalty should be, to which Mr. Mohana replied that he broke the rules because he 
had "been having serious financial difficulty." Commissioner Brother Elk responded 
that "it was unfortunate; we all have had financial difficulty; of course the penalty in 
this case means that you'll have more financial difficulty because it's almost 
automatic that you won't be able to sell." 

Commissioner Roth asked Mr. Mohana whether, if his license was suspended, he was 
going to sell in the illegal spaces, to which he replied in the negative. 

Commissioner Cochran noted that, with the rescheduling of committee meetings, the 
scheduling of a time for Mr. Mohana to be heard by the Committee, and the length of 
time before a penalty would be issued, Mr. Mohana had "opportunity to take 
advantage of the system.... and it seems unfair to the other artists." She added that "he 
clearly is not heeding any kind of warnings ... and warnings are not enough, and by 
the time he's punished, it's many months later." 



Mr. Mohana stated that he lives in Sacramento, has another job there, and does 
business in San Francisco only in summer on the weekends. 

Program Director Lazar pointed out that "weekends are the most acute time for the 
street artists" and particularly during summer at the Wharf. 

Commissioner Stermer noted that both types of violation committed by Mr. Mohana 
happened during summer. 

Advisory Committee Chairman Porkola pointed out that, many years ago, the 
Advisory Committee conducted two meetings a month, one of the meetings 
composed of violation hearings; in addition, "it took a number of years for" the 
Advisory Committee" to get a situation on the street where people understood what 
the standards were for jewelry and beadcraft which were the source of the vast 
majority of problems we had; and that's happened over many summers and Christmas 
seasons of going out and having one-on-one conversations with numerous artists and 
going through their tables, piece by piece," focusing on what items were allowed and 
what were not, "... and I'm sure that all the jewelers on the street" were interested in 
the outcome of this case. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that "while the location" of where an artist sells "was 
serious, ... it's not as serious to the artists as another artist who is selling material that 
he or she doesn't make. ... because they have to spend the rest of their time - when 
they're not selling - making the stuff, whereas" an artist who sells items he or she 
doesn't make "just has to go out to the Gift Center" to buy "some things." 

In response to a question from Commissioner Roth, Mr. Mohana stated that it was his 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 






SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 5 of 16 



intention to renew his certificate when it expires in two months. 

Commissioner Brother Elk moved that Abdi Mohana be found in violation of the 
street artist ordinance for selling items not of his own creation and for selling in 
locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

Commissioner Roth stated that it seemed appropriate that Mr. Mohana's certificate be 
suspended for two months and three weeks during summer, the season which "seems 
to be his problem time, and, as we all know, summer is the best selling season, the 
busiest time." She noted that since Mr. Mohana normally sold only on weekends, 
such a proposed suspension would not be "as tough" on him as it would for a street 
artist who sells seven days a week. 

Mr. Mohana requested that his suspension be split to allow part of it to be served 
during summer. 

Commissioner Stermer responded that, while this could be discussed, he 
(Commissioner Stermer) was "not predisposed to that; it seems to me that it doesn't 
take a great leap of imagination ... to imagine that you spent the entire last summer 
selling goods that were not your own and most of the time outside your own area. ... 
We're sitting here defending the street artists ... our mandate ... defending the 
principle of the program, and I just think that selling stuff that you don't make is 
serious ... especially when you're competing against people who are working every 
day at a forge ... whatever they're doing ... I don't feel that half a suspension in a slow 
period, when you wouldn't probably be down here anyway, is much of a suspension 
at all." 

Commissioner Cochran stated that she agreed. To Mr. Mohana, she stated that her 
"inclination would be to not renew your license at all. I feel that it's that severe. 
You've done every turn to try to subvert the system ... every possible way you could 
not pay attention to the rules, you've done that. In my mind, there's not much 
redemption there." The Commissioner proposed that Mr. Mohana's certificate be 
suspended for three months in the summer. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated he had been looking for something to be 
sympathetic for with regard to Mr. Mohana's case and the only thing he found was 
sympathy for his apology. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that Mr. Mohana's activities represented "a serious 
community offense - offense to the community of artists"; to Mr. Mohana, he stated: I 
think you owe every one of them an apology." 

Commissioner Roth moved that Mr. Mohana's certificate be suspended for two 
months and three weeks commencing July 1st; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

Mohamed H. Ahmed - Certificate #5600. Alleged violations: (1) Selling items 
(Egyptian-style paintings/prints; beadwoven doilies) not certified by the Arts 
Commission and not of the artist's own creation (Ord. 41-83, Sec. 2405(a) ); (2) 
Selling in locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors (Sec. 2405(b) ); (3) 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 6 of 16 



Exceeding display length regulation (Sec. 2405(c)(4) ). (Due to the above alleged 
violations, the Arts Commission's Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists 
Program Director withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Ahmed's certificate pending a 
decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the 
certificate.) 

Program Director Lazar informed the Commissioners that Mr. Ahmed's certificate 
had expired on January 1 1th. In the "NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL PENDING HEARING (Charge of Serious Violation 
of Street Artist Ordinance)" sent to Mr. Ahmed by the Director of Cultural Affairs 
and the Program Director on November 29, 2000, Mr. Ahmed was informed that "IF 
YOUR CERTIFICATE SHOULD EXPIRE PRIOR TO THE HEARING OR TO 
THE ISSUANCE OF THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION, YOUR CERTIFICATE 
WILL NOT BE RENEWED UNTIL ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE OF THE 
COMMITTEE'S DECISION, IF SO, TO RENEW" and that "PLEASE BE ADVISED 
THAT ALSO THAT THE COMMITTEE HEARING MAY NOT NECESSARILY 
BE SCHEDULED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR CURRENT 
CERTIFICATE, DUE TO THE COMMITTEE'S POSSIBLE BACKLOG OF 
AGENDA ITEMS, LACK OF QUORUM, OR OTHER REASONS." 

The Program Director read from a "CHRONOLOGY OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS" 
compiled by the Program Director regarding Mr. Ahmed's alleged violations which 
included four incidents of displaying items not certified by the Arts Commission and 
not of the artist's own creation (November 27, November 30, December 12, and 
December 20, 2000); four incidents of selling in a location not designated by the 
Board of Supervisors (November 27, November 30, December 19, and December 20, 
2000); and one incident of exceeding the display length regulation (December 20, 
2000). The chronology also described two occasions (December 12th and 20th) in 
which the Program Director had on-site, lengthy discussions with Mr. Ahmed 
regarding the alleged violations for which he was being cited. On one of these 
occasions (December 12th) Mr. Ahmed acknowledged receiving the "NOTICE OF 
WITHHOLDING OF CERTIFICATE"; just seven days later (December 19th), he 
was allegedly selling in an illegal location, and one day after that (December 20), he 
was allegedly committing all three types of violation. The Program Director 
supported the incidents listed in the chronology by reading from entries of his 
INSPECTOR'S LOGBOOK. 

Prior to the above incidents, the Program Director had observed Mr. Ahmed selling 
items not certified and not of his own creation (Egyptian-style prints) on July 7, 2000 
- this was just eight days after he had received his certificate to sell beadcraft which 
had been examined and approved by the Advisory Committee; furthermore, the 
Egyptian style prints were the same items he had been observed selling on the 
Downtown streets prior to receiving his certificate. Ordinarily, a certified street artist 
who is observed for the first time selling items not of the artist's own creation receives 
a "NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF CERTIFICATE"; but because Mr. Ahmed was 
a new licensee, the Program Director chose, instead, to send him on July 14, 2000 a 
"NOTICE OF WARNING." Not long after this, however, on November 27th, Mr. 
Ahmed was observed selling the same illegal merchandise and also selling in an 
illegal location; this resulted in the "NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF 
CERTIFICATE" sent to him on November 29th. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 7 of 16 



With regard to the alleged incidents (November 30, December 12, December 20) of 
selling bead-woven doilies not of the artist's own creation, Mr. Ahmed, according to 
the Program Director, had been licensed to sell beadcraft but "beadcraft" pertained to 
the beadstrung necklaces he had shown to, and received approval by, the Advisory 
Committee. Mr. Ahmed had not submitted the doilies to the Advisory Committee for 
inspection. Furthermore, the Program Director stated that the doilies appeared to be 
meticulously beadwoven - not strung - and of a much higher calibre of craftsmanship 
than that of the necklaces Mr. Ahmed had shown the Advisory Committee. 

Mr. Ahmed stated: "I agree about all the allegations presented with the exception of 
the locations." He went on to say that, as a new artist, he did not know the legal 
locations, and none of the other artists informed him of them. 
He also stated that being a street artist was "the only way" he could "make a living." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Ahmed stated that he did not 
make the doilies or the prints, that they were made by his brother. Mr. Ahmed 
responded affirmatively to a question by the Commissioner as to whether he knew he 
had to make what he sells in the Street Artists Program. 

Commissioner Roth verified with the Program Director that the Program's 
"bluebook", given to all certified street artists, lists all the spaces. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, Mr. Ahmed stated that he received 
the "bluebook" when he joined the Program but did not read it and that he had been 
confused, to which the Commissioner stated: "It's your responsibility, however, to 
know where you are allowed to sell. The thing that bothers me is that the first 
violation occured just eight days after you joined this Program." In response to 
another question by the Commissioner, Mr. Ahmed stated that he still had not read 
the "bluebook." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that to Mr. Ahmed: "I'm counting ... six separate times 
when you've been told about either the products you're selling and the location," to 
which Mr. Ahmed stated that the artists around him did not inform him of the 
locations. The Commissioner replied that it was not the responsibility of the artists to 
do so. 

Program Director Lazar reiterated that he had observed Mr. Ahmed, before coming 
into the Program, selling among the licensed artists; and the artists - particularly the 
ones on Market Street - were not accustomed to informing the office of unlicensed 
vendors nor taking it upon themselves to check for certificates. 

Commissioner Cochran noted that there were three incidents within a week whereby 
Mr. Ahmed was found in an illegal location, and that he had been told that he was not 
in a legal space. 

Program Director Lazar clarified that the Downtown spaces were clearly visible, as 
their markings and numbers had been freshly repainted in November, and were being 
occupied by the artists. 

Commissioner Stermer stated to Mr. Ahmed that it was his responsibility, as a 
member of the Street Artists Program, to understand and follow the Program's 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 8 of 16 



regulations. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated to Mr. Ahmed that, "even accepting your confusion 
- if it's true - about the location, there are four ... instances where you've been told ... 
you're not selling goods that are yours; and that's the thing that bothers me the most. 
... It's very clear that you understood that you were in violation." 

Commissioner Roth noted that there were three incidents of Mr. Ahmed allegedly 
selling in the same illegal location - 833 Market Street (November 27th, November 
30th, and December 19th), two of the incidents occuring after receiving notice 
(November 29th "NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF CERTIFICATE") of such 
violation in such location. 

Commissioner Stermer questioned the Program Director on whether he had ever 
observed Mr. Ahmed selling in a legal location with items he was certified to sell; the 
Program Director replied that he had not. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that he was looking for some reason for Mr. 
Ahmed's "confusion", as it is often the case, he said, that people who have not been 
long in this country "have a real second language issue." To Mr. Ahmed, he stated: 
"But your English is marvelous. So I don't think there's a lack of comprehension of 
what Mr. Lazar has told you. ..." 

Mr. Ahmed stated that he had learned his lesson and that was why he wanted to 
renew his license. He added that it was his only way of making a living. 

To Mr. Ahmed, Commissioner Stermer stated that Mr. Ahmed either was not as 
confused as he said he was and was misrepresenting his confusion or, worse, he was 
"intentionally confused" because he refused to read the guidebook and would not 
consider the rules or attempt to learn them. "You want us to believe that you're telling 
the truth, that you're confused, because you haven't ... bothered to do what every other 
street artist out there does, which is to read it, to understand it, and to comply with 
it.. ..Or you did bother to do it, but you just chose to break the rules anyway." 

Commissioner Brother Elk asked Mr. Ahmed: "If this is your only way to make 
money, why would you endanger your sole source of income by not following the 
rules?" Mr. Ahmed replied: "Just because I don't read the book." 

Commissioner Roth moved that Mohamed H. Ahmed be found in violation for selling 
items not certified by the Arts Commission and not of his own creation, for selling in 
locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors, and for exceeding the display 
length regulation; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Brother Elk and 
unanimously approved. 

Discussion ensued on the question of whether to issue a new certificate to Mr. 
Ahmed. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that it was "insulting" to the Commissioners, to the 
staff, and "to the spirit of the Street Artists Program" to have to endure Mr. Ahmed's 
continuous violations. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 9 of 16 



Commissioner Roth moved that Mr. Ahmed be issued a certificate with a warning that 
any further incident committed by him of any of the above three violations will 
warrant revocation of cerftificate; the motion was seconded by Commissioner 
Freebairn-Smith and unanimously approved. 

Discussion ensued on the possibility of a penalty or penalties for Mr. Ahmed's 
violations. Program Director Lazar clarified that the Arts Commission's standard 
penalties, for first offense, was a suspension of certificate for two months for selling 
items not of the artist's own creation, a suspension of three weeks for selling in a 
location not designated by the Board of Supervisors, and a suspension of three weeks 
for exceeding the display length regulation. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith questioned Mr. Ahmed on the "mixed message" he 
was giving by saying he wanted to be a street artist because his livelihood depended 
on it and yet demonstrating "I really don't give a damn, I'm not with the Program, I 
don't even read the instructions ...I don't understand whether you want to be a street 
artist in this Program at all." Mr. Ahmed reiterated: "I learned my lesson; I am 
human; I made a mistake; and I need a chance to participate ..." 

Commissioner Cochran stated that she did not have sympathy for a street artist 
refusing to read the Program's book, and that if Mr. Ahmed chose to not read the 
book, he should take the consequences for his violations; "you can't have it both 
ways: 'I didn't know what I was doing, so I should be excused.' " 

Commissioner Roth stated to Mr. Ahmed that, while he was a new artist in the 
Program and she would be inclined to support his interest in obtaining a certificate, 
she also had "an obligation to support the artists who are out there ... who know the 
rules, who've read the book, who are abiding by the rules"; therefore she would be 
inclined to issue a new certificate to Mr. Ahmed now and letting him "demonstrate up 
until summertime that" he "can follow the rules, that" he "can sell in the right proper 
spaces, that" he "can sell the proper goods on the proper-sized table ... and to then 
allow him to serve his penalty "during the summer months, so as to not punish the 
other street artists out there who need those summer spaces ... I'd rather see" Mr. 
Ahmed "serve" his "penalty then than to find out two or three months from now that 
after" he has "served a penalty" he has "started violating again, and that" he is "taking 
then a spot away from an artist who belongs in the Program, who is following the 
rules ... during the summertime, and we just haven't caught" Mr. Ahmed "yet." 

Mr. Ahmed asked: "If someone were ignorant of the law and was punished, would 
that be justice?" Commissioner Stermer replied that it was, and that even to obtain a 
driver's license required an applicant to read the rules and take a test. Mr. Ahmed 
responded that he would now read the Program's book. 

Commissioner Roth moved that Mr. Ahmed's certificate be suspended for three 
months and two weeks commencing July 1st; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

At Mr. Ahmed's request and with the consent of the Commissioners, the Program 
Director explained the Committee's three motions to Mr. Ahmed. 

Commissioner Roth moved to amend the previous motion by providing that Mr. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 10 of 16 



Ahmed's suspension commence July 1st of the year in which the certificate is issued; 
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

Program Director Lazar informed Mr. Ahmed that he had twenty days from this the 
day of this hearing to file an appeal with the Board of Appeals in order to appeal the 
Program Committee's (and ultimately the Program Director's) decision. Mr. Ahmed 
expressed interest in obtaining his new certificate immediately. The Program Director 
clarified that, in order to do so, Mr. Ahmed would have to submit such a request in 
writing with a statement that he chose to waive his right of appeal. Mr. Ahmed 
indicated that he would do this. 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENT OF 
STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE (continued from 10/11/00 meeting) 

In reference to this item, the full Arts Commission in Resolution No. 1 106-00-417, on 
November 6, 2000, authorized the Street Artists Program Director "to prepare a report 
on the previous five years and a projection for the next five years of expenditures and 
revenues of the Street Artists Program for a determination on adjusting the street 
artist certificate fee." 

In accord with this resolution, Program Director Lazar presented his report. He 
showed that the average annual increase in the Program's budget was $3,770 which, 
when added to the current year's budget, yielded the projected amount for the 
following year's budget, and so on for each of the next six years. He further explained 
that the projected revenue for each of the next seven years was based on a current 
average of $130,000 plus 6% interest on the balance of the Program's surplus fees, the 
balance currently being approximately $150,000. Unlike the annual budget increases, 
the annual revenue (not counting the interest on the surplus) was projected to remain 
the same, as the population of the Program's certificate-holders had levelled off to 
approximately 400 in recent years. In order to meet each year's budget without having 
to raise the amount of the artists' certificate fee, the annual revenue would have to be 
supplemented by the interest on the surplus as well as by a significant portion of the 
principal of the surplus. (This the Program had been doing for several recent years, 
staving off an increase in the amount of the certificate fee which, in fact, had not been 
increased since 1990.) By adding the interest and the surplus to the annual revenue in 
order to meet each of the budgets for the next next seven years, the Program Director 
projected that the balance of the surplus would be entirely depleted by the year 2007- 
08, and there would even, for that year, be a projected deficit of $37,000. 

The Program Director's report went on to show a possible fee scenario for the next 
seven years based on an approximation of the annual budget divided by 400 street 
artists and not utilizing the surplus fees. Were there not the current surplus, for 
example, the report showed that the fee for 2001-02 would be $385.22, an increase of 
$35.22 over what the fee has been for the last ten years; and by 2007-08, the fee 
would be $441.77, a dramatic increase of $91.77 over the current fee. The Program 
Director stated that this information could assist the Commissioners in considering 
possible gradual increases in the fee over the next seven years to mitigate the impact 
of the severity of the fee when the surplus is exhausted. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, Director of Cultural Affairs 
Newirth stated that the projections in the report did not reflect possible pay raises due 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 1 1 of 16 



to reclassification of positions but, he said, there could be some such increase by 
2007-08 though not substantial. He went on to say that he had encouraged the 
Program Director to look at the report "in a strategic way." Mr. Newirth emphasized 
his interest in ensuring the longevity and continuity of the Street Artists Program. 
Therefore, he said, "the whole issue was one of looking ... at incremental increases to 
avoid a sudden shock to the pocketbooks of the street artists and have a dramatic 
attrition." From the report and Committee discussion, Mr. Newirth stated that he was 
looking for a policy decision from the Committee about fiscal direction for the next 
five years; such a policy, he said, would not have to be "etched in stone but which 
would be revisited, say, on an annual basis at budget time." Under such consideration 
could be a scenario of maintaining the present fee for three years and then to adjust it 
half-way or three-quarters of the way to become self-supporting; another scenario 
could be to spend all the surplus now and then raise the fee to whatever the budget 
requires. 

Mr. Newirth went on to say that he has been at the Arts Commission for eight years 
and has observed a leveling out of the street artist population; from this, it was his 
sense that if the fee were dramatically decreased in one year (as stated in one street 
artist proposal) and new artists entered the Program, the new artists would leave the 
Program when their fee increased substantially the next year. Mr. Newirth favored 
phasing in fee increases that would be "tolerable" and "with as little shock to the 
system as possible" every two or three years; to increase the fee on a yearly basis 
would involve a great deal of work for the Program Director and would be confusing 
to the artists. Regardless, Mr. Newirth's overall advice to the Committee was to adopt 
a "strategy to gradually make the fee self-supporting by 2007-08." 

Commissioner Stermer called for discussion from the audience. 

Street Artist Bill Clark thanked the Commissioners for their decisions in the previous 
two violation hearings. He then submitted a "STREET ARTIST SURVEY" signed by 
forty-two street artists who favored a "PLAN A, proposed by Bill and Bob Clark," 
which "would lower the fees significantly for several years by using the surplus funds 
immediately"; signed by four street artists who favored a "PLAN B, proposed by the 
Art Commission," which "would raise the fees slightly each year and use the surplus 
funds, when necessary, to balance the budget at the end of the year"; and signed by 
two artists who favored neither plan. Mr. Clark said the survey was circulated among 
the artists at the lotteries during the previous four weekends - there were 
approximately one hundred fifty people at the lotteries - and the resulting survey 
showed "overwhelming" support to lower the fee. 

Mr. Clark stated that his position to utilize all of the surplus immediately was based 
on his "belief that the Administrative Code Section 10.02 requires you to use the 
surplus" as revenue for the ensuing year. He requested the Commissioners to obtain 
an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether the Code section applies to the Street 
Artists Program. 

Mr. Clark submitted an analysis of the Program Director's budget for the current year 
and explained that, for the first six months of this year, the Program collected $76,000 
in fee revenue, which includes $1,500 in application/examination fees as well as 
$5,000 collected at the end of the previous year and carried forward to the current 
year. His analysis included a projection of revenue for the balance of the year, 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 12 of 16 



including $1,750 in application/examination fees, a savings of $2,000 in Advisory 
Committee compensation due to the lack of a fifth member on the Committee, and 
earnings of approximately $9,000 in interest on the surplus. Therefore, he stated, the 
Program earned, for the first six months of this year, $88,750. As the current budget 
was $150,317, Mr. Clark stated that, by subtracting the current six-month earnings, 
the Program had to earn an additional $61,567 over the remaining six months to meet 
its budget. By dividing $61,567 by six months, it could be ascertained that $10,261 
was required per month without having to use any of the surplus. Mr. Clark then 
explained that, by dividing the annual fee of $350 by twelve, a monthly fee of $29.17 
was required; by dividing the $10,261 monthly revenue by this monthly fee, it could 
be ascertained that an average of 352 artists would be required each month for the 
next six months to support the budget without having to use any of the surplus. Since 
the current average number of artists (as per the Program's published monthly totals 
for the first six months) was 396.4, it could be seen that the required 352 artists per 
month could be easily met. Mr. Clark predicted that, rather than having to use the 
surplus to meet the budget, the revenue this year might actually add to the surplus. 

Mr. Clark submitted a paper entitled "CLARK'S REVISED FIVE YEAR PLAN" 
which, following the Program Director's report, compared a proposed "Clark's Fee" 
with "Howard's Fee (using surplus)" and "Howard's Fee (not using surplus)" for each 
of the years from 2000-01 to 2007-08. What the plan proposed to do was to use up 
the entire surplus for 2001-02 which would reduce the fee dramatically to $4 a year, 
making it a strong enducement for current licenseholders to stay in the Program; at 
the same time, the Program would continue to screen and certify its normal annual 
number of new applicants (approximately 150-60) which, when added to the current 
number of 390 certificate-holders, would raise the street artist population to 550 who 
would then, for the following year, represent a larger number of individuals for 
dividing the Program's expenses. For 2002-03, therefore, the Program's projected 
budget of $157,857 would be shared by 550 artists each paying $267 (still 
"significantly lower", Mr. Clark stated, than the current fee) versus, under "Howard's 
Fee (using surplus)", 360 artists each paying $350 and supplemented by $102,435 of 
surplus, and versus, under "Howard's Fee (not using surplus)", 400 artists each paying 
$394.64 - and so on for each of the next five years. 

Mr. Clark went on to say that, under the Clark plan, the ensuing years would show the 
fee climbing moderately up to $315 in 2007-08, which would still be lower than the 
current fee and much lower than the Program Director's predicted fee of $441.77 for 
that year. Mr. Clark told the Commissioners that "unless you start to raise the fees 
right now, you're going to have a year where the fees are going to jump dramatically 
anyway." 

Mr. Clark added that "in response to what I consider the paranoia of people who say 
'well, we're going to bring to bring a lot of people into the Program,' I explained to 
them that ... we're only going to screen in ...be able to screen what we can monthly 
screen anyhow ... maybe ten to fifteen people ... But when people don't have to be out 
there ... just to make the money to make sure I pay you the license fee, I can 
guarantee you ... for every five people ...extra new people ... ten people that come to a 
lottery, there's going to be ten people who go home and use their time to get their 
work done, to rebuild their product ... so when they are out there, it's more 
economically feasible - or they just need a break. I'm out there every weekend of the 
year because I have to be there in order to make all my ends meet. And I can 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 13 of 16 



guarantee you there are few reasons I won't be there if I don't have to be there to pay 
my fee." 

Through the chair, Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth asked Mr. Clark whether he 
firmly believed that, with a proposed fee of $4 jumping to $267, the number of artists 
would be maintained. Mr. Clark answered affirmatively. 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that "it's more likely for me to drop out of the Program 
at $350 now than it is for me ... at $267." 

Street Artist Marco Kasek stated that the survey which was circulated "expressed the 
feelings of the artists in the Program; prople don't want to increase the fee ... San 
Francisco is a very expensive city..." The artists, he said, wanted for selling spaces. 
"Everything is possible to achieve if we work together." 

Street Artist Barbara Michalak stated that "to this license fee, we have to add our 
parking - we are constantly harrassed by metermen ..." and increased utility costs for 
production of their arts and crafts; such costs should be considered when a street artist 
fee increase is considered. Ms. Michalak thanked the Commissioners "for taking 
action against the vendors who sell mass-produced items; I'm very grateful. It's very 
difficult to compete with somebody who sells those items." 

In response to a question from Commissioner Roth, Program Director Lazar stated 
that there were approximately 350 street artist spaces, out of which an estimated 160 
were "viable." In response to additional questions from the Commissioner, Mr. Lazar 
stated that, without having made a study, he estimated approximately one fourth to 
one third of the artists paid yearly fees. 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that there was a good number of artists who 
pay for two quarters and then drop out of the Program. The Program Director agreed 
that this was an appreciable number represented largely by artists who sell only 
seasonally. In response to questions from the Commissioner, the Program Director 
stated that the total number of street artists at its highest peak of the year - summer - 
was not too much higher than 400; the lowest point of the year, between new year and 
late spring, would show a figure of about 370. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth and the Program Director referred the 
Commissioners to a memo written by the Program Director recounting a meeting he 
attended with the City Attorney's office in which an answer of "no" was given to the 
question of whether the Commission was required to utilize the entire surplus in any 
single year. 

Commissioner Roth stated that she was considering the prospect of the fee increasing 
and decreasing and the number of people potentially entering and leaving the 
Program in view of the existence of a 160 good spaces being sought by currently 390 
artists. She commented that it was "very difficult" to obtain new spaces from the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Through the chair, Street Artist Robert Clark asked if Deputy City Attorney had an 
answer to the Committee's two questions submitted at its October 1 1, 2000 meeting 
regarding the certificate fees of the 1970s that were retained in the General Fund. Ms. 
Varah responded that she appreciated the artists' patience, that she submitted her 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 14 of 16 



drafted response to her supervisors, and it was now in the revisioning process. She 
apologized for the response not being ready for this meeting. 

In response to a question from Commissioner Cochran, Deputy City Attorney Varah 
stated that her office had advised that neither the Charter nor the street artist 
ordinance requires that the Street Artists Program spend all of its surplus in a current 
fiscal year in order to offset a deficit. In response to a question submitted through the 
chair by Street Artist Bill Clark, Ms. Varah stated that she would look into 
Adminsitrative Code Section 10.02 to see if the section requires the Program to do so. 

In response to a questions from Commissioners Roth and Stermer, Program Director 
Lazar clarified that the street artist ordinance allows artists the option of paying a 
quarterly or an annual fee, and the collection of the fees varies in accord with the time 
the artists enter the Program. The Program Director further clarified that any fee 
change would require at least three months worth of hearings (Commission and 
Board of Supervisors), allowing plenty of time for street artists to be aware of the 
issue. Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth added that, in general, that such decisions 
would be made by the Commission's Street Artists Program Committee, Executive 
Committee, and the full Commission itself between December and February for 
included in the budget for July 1st. 

Street artist Bill Clark urged that the Commision investigate whether artists who pay 
for the year under a previous fee rate would be subject to pay the difference between 
a new fee rate and the previous rate when the new rate is enacted. 

Commissioner Cochran stated that, based on the current number of spaces, she found 
it difficult to believe that 550 artists, under the Clark plan, could be sustained until the 
space issue changed. 

Street Artist Robert Clark interjected that he and his brother have asked that the 
Committee calendar for next month an item to decrease or repeal many of the current 
space regulations which would then allow for the creation of more spaces. 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Clark to not interrupt a Commissioner. 

Street Artist Barabra Michalak interjected that everyone should listen to what 
everyone has to say and that "we are adults and we can come to a conclusion." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that every artist has had, and will have, ample time to 
speak, and that all he asked was that an artist raise his or her hand "and wait for a 
Commissioner to finish their question or their comment." 

Commissioner Cochran resumed her comments by acknowledging that the Program 
had stabilized to 400 artists, that perhaps a review of some of the spaces would be in 
order, but that, at this point in time, she would have to base her judgment of the fee 
issue on the current number of artists and spaces. 

Street Artist Bill Clark responded by reiterating his point that a larger number of 
artists paying a lower fee would remove the necessity of going to the lottery for many 
artists, thereby not increasing the number of artists at the lottery. 



httD://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetin2s/minutes/2001/st arts/sam02 1400.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 15 of 16 



Commissioner Cochran disagreed, did some calculations, and stated that she could 
not see how a $7 a month difference would significantly affect the motivations of the 
artists. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that there were no guarantees that the anticipated new 
artists would remain in the Program even if they eventually pay less than the current 
fee: "If you charge them four dollars one year, and then charge two sixty-seven, they 
will forget it's a savings from three fifty. They'll say 'it's two hundred and fifty-four 
dollars more than I've been paying last year'. ... That's also got to be figured into the 
equation. That's a huge jump; that's more than anybody's asking to do; people have 
short memories in this world. ..." 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth urged the Commissioners to adopt a long-range 
"working strategic idea", and, in the next three months, adopt a working plan-in- 
progress for the next five years to be revisited in future meetings. 
Commissioner Stermer stated that he did not feel that the way the Clarks' survey was 
worded accurately reflected the two plans, that it did not fairly express the economics 
of the Program; he suggested that it be re-worded and re-submitted to the artists. 

In response to a question by Commisisoner Roth, Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, 
when he circulated the survey, he did not explain to the artists that Plan A involved a 
reduction of fee to $4 in one year and then a significant increase in the next year. 
Furthermore, he could not fully present Plan B to the artists because the Program 
Director's report had not been published until a few days before the meeting. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that his Committee would consider both plans. 

Mr. Newirth asked that consideration be given to the issue of who the actual 
"beneficiaries" would be of the surplus. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that "this is a business-planning document, and 
the slope of deficit ... is running in order of magnitude 20% more each year ...We're 
running a business that's getting deeper and deeper in debt ... The slope of increase 
for our businesspeople who are craftspeople is about two and a half dollars a quarter 
or ten dollars a year ... based upon 400 ... The inflation for them is far less steep than 
the slope of this debt. ..." 

Mr. Newirth, in rephrasing the Commissioner's point, stated it as a question: "Is it 
sounder to be in debt for a longer period of time while stabilizing revenue and 
expenses versus trying to address that within, say, a two-year period by spending all 
the surplus? ... If you were to stabilize the debt, in a given year you really would 
patch things up dramatically; you would never be drawing down on that surplus ... 
Fees would be ratcheted enough in order to stabilize the deficit. ... I would advocate 
that you not ever draw down 100%" of the reserve but "draw down till you have a 
prudent reserve." 

Street Artist Robert Clark advised the Commissioners to look into a second opinion, 
other than the City Attorney's, "because I personally think the City Attorney's office 
is taking much too long on this issue, and I think that there are some serious questions 
as to whether or not they really want to give this Committee accurate information." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam021400.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 14, 2001 Page 16 of 16 

Commissioner Roth stated the Commissioners have asked the City Attorney to look 
into the Code; at this point, the Commissioner was interrupted by the Clarks; a verbal 
interchange erupted between them, the Commissioner, and Commissioner Stermer 
who asked that the Commissioners be allowed to make their statements without 
interruption. 

Commissioner Stermer adjourned the meeting at 5:53 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
February 28, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetines/minutes/2001/st arts/sam02 1400.htm 1 1/26/2003 



I oucct /Aiusis nugioill <_lhiuiiiii.cc | ivjcuv-u i-r, iuui 



//o|/ vy cu oiaging/siau.sisu.cuu/mee... i/si_ans/siac street_ailists_prog.htm 




^Nf^ S ^®^ 




).15 



4 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 



Wednesday, Inarch 14, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
WAR - 8 2001 

p UBUC L/8RARV 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the^Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, ste 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

^genda 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 



II. 



ACTION 

Van Nguyen - Certificate #5652 (expired February 7, 2001). Alleged violation: Selling 
items (fabricated metal jewelry; fabricated metal, amber, and stone jewelry) not of the 
artist's own creation (Ord. 41-83, Sec. 2405(a) ). Due to the above alleged violation, the 
Arts Commission's Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director 
have withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Nguyen's certificate pending a decision by the Street 
Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/23/00 report by the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and 
Craftsmen Examiners describing the items which Mr. Nguyen was selling, and copies of photographs taken of 
Mr. Nguyen's items by the Advisory Committee, were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists 
Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 
Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ARTS COMMISSION RULE 

AUTHORIZING DISMISSAL FROM STREET ARTIST LOTTERY COMMITTEE 



- 



OF ANY MEMBER WHO FAILS TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE AT A LOTTERY AN 
UPCOMING "MOVIE LOTTERY" (WHICH DETERMINES THOSE ARTISTS 
WHO ARE TO BE COMPENSATED BY A FILM PRODUCTION COMPANY FOR 
ADVERSE IMPACTING OF THEIR STREET ARTIST SPACES) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a January 9, 2001 letter from Amy Dong and accompanying petition of 5 1 
street artists favoring the establishment of the above proposed rule, were provided to the Commisioners of the 
Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program 
office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
IE. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENT OF STREET 
ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE (continued from 2/14/01 meeting) 

In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may 
consider and discuss the funds available in the Street Artists Fund. 

ACTION 
IV. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST TO THE MAYOR AND BOARD 
OF SUPERVISORS FOR EXCESS CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE DEPOSITED 
INTO GENERAL FUND FROM 1972-80 (continued from 10/11/00 meeting) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a June 17, 2000 letter from William and Robert Clark and accompanying 
paper entitled "REASONS FOR REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF SURPLUS 
STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEES AND INTEREST" were provided to the Commissioners of the 
Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program 
office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
V. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF DAILY 
LOTTERY FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES AT PT. LOBOS ("CLIFF HOUSE 
SPACES") AND REPLACEMENT WITH THREE-DA YS-A- WEEK LOTTERY 
SYSTEM TO BE HELD AT 8:00 A. M. ON TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND 
SATURDAY 

ACTION 
VI. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF ARTS 
COMMISSION "BUDDY" SPACE-SHARING SYSTEM FOR PT. LOBOS SPACES 

ACTION 
Vn. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF 

EXCLUSIVE USE OF LEAVENWORTH STREET SPACES ("L-l" THROUGH 
"L-10") BY PORTRAIT ARTISTS, CARTOON AND "FUNSKETCH" ARTISTS 

(In reference to the above three items relating to the Pt. Lobos spaces and the Leavenworth Street spaces, 
copies of a 12/1/00 letter by William Clark, Robert Clark, and Edward Steneck were provided to the 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the 
Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 

DISCUSSION 
VIH. HEARING TO DISCUSS AMENDING SAFETY REGULATIONS GOVERNING 



of 3 , ' i/?/n i i ■ 



Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, ZUUl nie:///o|/ weo ^iaging/srac.sisu.eau/mee...i/si_arLs/siac screei_arnsis_prog.ntrr 

STREET ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 41-83, SEC. 2405, REGULATIONS FOR 
STREET ARTISTS) 

" 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/25/00 letter from William Clark and Robert Clark were provided to 
the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at 
the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 

DISCUSSION 
IX. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artist Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
X. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
XL ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 






[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
March 1, 2001 



in/m 1 1 -At atw 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts' and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5 163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ WWW.ci.sf.ca.US . 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 



Page 1 of 13 



_S__F_ 
A C 



SAN FRANCISCO 
ARTS COMMISSION 




^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, March 14, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA, 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2594. 

^-Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrea Cochran, Rod Freebairn- Smith 

Commissioners Absent: Andrew Brother Elk, Denise Roth 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk; Adine Varah, Deputy City 
Attorney 

In attendance were Mathew Porkola, Chair, Advisory Committee of Street Artists and 
Craftsmen Examiners; and Street Artists Julio Bonilla, Chrys Camperlino, Julie Choi, Bill 
Clark, Bob Clark, Elden Deza, Amy Dong, Alex George, Si Gong, Marco Kasek, Sharon 
MacDougall, Edward Steneck 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. and announced that, 
for any item on the agenda, once public testimony would be closed, the Commissioners 
would discuss the item without interruption by the public. He went on to say that a 
maximum often minutes would be allowed for the presentation of a case, and he 
encouraged speakers to not repeat points made in previous testimony. 

Program Director Lazar submitted a letter from Street Artist Bill Clark requesting that two 
corrections be made to the minutes of the Program Committee meeting of February 14, 
2001. 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam03 1 40 1 .html 



1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 2 of 13 



Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that the minutes of the Street Artists Program 
Committee meeting of February 14, 2001 be corrected by replacing, in paragraph 14 of 
Item 111, the word "reasons" with the word "weekends" in order for the sentence to read 
"...'And I can guarantee you there are few (( reasons)) weekends I won't be there ...' " and 
by deleting, in paragraph 36, the word "not" in order for the sentence to read "In response 
to a question by Commissioner Roth, Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, when he circulated 
the survey, he did (( not )) explain to the artists that Plan A ..."; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Cochran and unanimously approved. 

I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE 
OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

ACTION 

Van Nguyen - Certificate #5652 (expired February 7, 2001). Alleged violation: Selling items 

(fabricated metal jewelry; fabricated metal, amber, and stone jewelry) not of the artist's own 

creation. (Due to the above alleged violation, the Arts Commission's Director of Cultural Affairs 

and the Street Artists Program Director withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Nguyen's certificate 

pending a decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the 

certificate.) 

Program Director Lazar submitted to the Committee photographs of Mr. Nguyen's display at 
Market and Powell Streets taken on December 23, 2000 by the Advisory Committee of Street 
Artists and Craftsmen Examiners; Mr. Lazar stated that the photos showed commercially 
manufactured amber and silver pendants, pins, necklaces, and earrings, many of which were of 
animal shapes of a "sophisticated" and "highly sculptural quality" - all of which had never been 
approved by the Advisory Committee for Mr. Nguyen to sell. 

Mr. Lazar informed the Commissioners that an artist's alleged violation of selling items not of his 
own creation is considered a charge of serious violation of the street artist ordinance which, 
according to the Commission's Section 5 procedures, ordinarily results in the artist receiving a 
"NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL PENDING HEARING". 
However, because Mr. Nguyen met with the Program Director and maintained that he made the 
items, the Program Director, with the advice of the Director of Cultural Affairs, sent Mr. Nguyen 
a letter offering him the opportunity to demonstrate by February 7th (the expiration date of his 
certificate) his alleged ability to create specific items pictured in the photos. The letter requested 
that, by February 7th, he either consent to allow the Advisory Committee to come to his studio 
and watch him make the questionable items or to provide a video of himself making the items in 
his studio. Mr. Nguyen did neither. He e-mailed the Program Director that " 'I cannot spend time 
for this matter anymore, it is up to your decision.' " Upon receiving this response, the Program 
Director sent Mr. Nguyen a "NOTICE OF WITHHOLDING OF CERTIFICATE" and a notice to 
appear at today's Program Committee hearing. 

Mr. Lazar went on to say that in 1995 he issued a written warning to Mr. Nguyen to stop selling 
items not of his own creation. The warning was based on two incidents: (a) a police report the 
Program received which alleged that Mr. Nguyen was observed selling items not certified by the 
Arts Commission (watches and pens) and (b) a Program Director's report of observing Mr. 
Nguyen selling in an illegal location, exceeding the display length regulation, and selling items 
not of his own creation (silver chains, cast metal pendants). 

In response to questions by Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Lazar stated that Mr. Nguyen had been a 
certified street artist for approximately eight years, that he did not sell regularly - except primarily 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam03 1 40 1 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 3 of 13 



seasonally - on the streets. 

Advisory Committee Chairman Mathew Porkola identified the photos as the ones he had taken 
and stated that the members of his Committee were "very familiar with this line of jewelry" as, a 
few years before, they had performed a series of visits to the studio of two other artists who were 
making very similar (silver and amber) items; in addition, he said, they had visited two stores in 
The Gift Center which carried exclusively this type of jewelry. Mr. Porkola added that many of 
the items shown in the photos were cast items, and that Mr. Nguyen had not been licensed for cast 
jewelry. Summing up, Mr. Porkola said he had "no doubt" that the items were not created by Mr. 
Nguyen. 

The Commissioners noted that Mr. Nguyen was not present. 

In response to a request by Commissioner Stermer for a staff recommendation, Mr. Lazar 
compared the case with two similar ones heard by the Program Committee at the previous month's 
meeting. Those two cases had involved the violation of selling items not of the artist's own 
creation, both violators had been previously warned, both had appeared at their hearings and 
requested to keep their certificates, and both had been found in violation and had received the 
Commission's standard penalty for a first offense of such violation, a two-month suspension of 
certificate but with an additional "penalty" of the suspension having to be served during the 
summer selling season. In the present case, however, the Program Director pointed out that the 
artist had not appeared at his hearing and had, in fact, written that he did not wish to spend any 
further time on the matter. While the City Attorney had routinely advised the Commission to be 
consistent in its disciplinary decisions in street artist violation hearings, the Program Director 
observed a major difference in this case and that was that the violator did not appear before the 
Committee expressing interest in receiving a certificate. The Commissioners could consider 
issuing a certificate to Mr. Nguyen with the same suspension as had been issued in the previous 
two cases or could refuse to issue him a certificate at all. 

In any case, the Program Director would immediately notify Mr. Nguyen of the Committee's 
recommendation, and, by law, he would be given five days to request a re-hearing which would be 
granted if Mr. Nguyen were to show good cause as to why he failed to appear at the present 
hearing and/or could produce evidence critical to his case which he had not been able to obtain 
previously. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that if Mr. Nguyen were to demonstrate interest in being a 
part of the Street Artists Program, the Commissioners should hear his request; otherwise, there 
was currently an "apparent disinterest" on the part of the former certificateholder. 

Commissioner Stermer stressed that it would be incumbent upon Mr. Nguyen to demonstrate to 
the Advisory Committee that he could make everything he intended to sell. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that Van Nguyen be found in violation for selling items not 
of his own creation; that issuance of a certificate be not approved; and that should Mr. Nguyen 
re-apply for certification, a certificate be issued subject to review and verification by the Advisory 
Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners and the Street Artists Program Committee 
that Mr. Nguyen's wares are of his own creation; the motion was seconded by Commissioner 
Cochran and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ARTS COMMISSION RULE 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 4 of 13' 



AUTHORIZING DISMISSAL FROM STREET ARTIST LOTTERY COMMITTEE OF 
ANY MEMBER WHO FAILS TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE AT A LOTTERY AN 
UPCOMING "MOVIE LOTTERY" (WHICH DETERMINES THOSE ARTISTS WHO 
ARE TO BE COMPENSATED BY A FILM PRODUCTION COMPANY FOR ADVERSE 
IMPACTING OF THEIR STREET ARTIST SPACES) 

Program Director Lazar submitted a petition he had received from Street Artist Amy Dong which 
was signed by 51 street artists who favored the establishment of an Arts Commission rule 
whereby Lottery Committee members would be required to announce upcoming "movie lotteries" 
to street artists at the regular lotteries and whereby failure to make such announcements would 
result in dismissal from the Lottery Committee. The Program Director explained that in 1995 the 
Program Committee conducted hearings on the Arts Commission's agreement with the Film and 
Video Arts Commission to compensate street artists for loss of spaces due to filmmaking, and 
that, during the course of the hearings, the street artists and the Arts Commissioners expressed 
their intent that Lottery Committee members would announce any upcoming "movie lottery" at 
main lotteries held on either the day of the "movie lottery" or on days prior to the "movie lottery" 
day, depending on the amount of advance notice given to the Street Artists Program Director. No 
one foresaw the need to require Lottery Committee members to publicly make such 
announcements. 

Street Artist Amy Dong stated that although Lottery Committee members should inform artists 
assembled at a regular lottery about an upcoming "movie lottery," Lottery Committee members 
have been informing only their friends. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Cochran, Program Director Lazar stated that he is not 
always given adequate advance notice of filming by a film company, and it is often that he 
informs the Lottery Committee only the night before a "movie lottery" is to take place; therefore, 
the artists who hear about it are those who happen to be present that day at the lotteries. He went 
on to say that the dismissal of any Lottery Committee member is done by the Program Director 
upon receipt of a complaint, and that the Lottery Committee member may appeal the complaint in 
a public meeting with the Program Director for reinstatement to the Committee. Should 
complaints be received about members deliberately failing to announce "movie lotteries", 
decisions on appeals of such dismissals would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Commissioner Stermer verified that it would be incumbent upon the Program Director to inform 
primarily the particular Lottery Committee member scheduled to run the lotteries on the day of the 
"movie lottery." 

Street Artist Steven Goldberg stated that, in many instances, a Lottery Committee member is out 
of town at the time the Program Director attempts to reach him, and therefore no announcement of 
an upcoming "movie lottery" is made until the day the member is actually scheduled to run the 
lotteries. Program Director Lazar responded that this "extenuating circumstance" would be a 
sound reason for reinstating to the Committee a member against whom a charge has been brought. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that if, under normal circumstances, there would not be involved 
"an egregious policing aspect," he would be in favor of adopting the proposed rule. He 
acknowledged that the system of disseminating information of upcoming "movie lotteries" was 
"flawed" in that a film company can, and often does, change its scheduling at the last minute. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that a rule be adopted authorizing dismissal from the 
Street Artist Lottery Committee of any member who fails to publicly announce at a lottery an 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam03 1 40 1 .html . 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 5 of 13 



upcoming "movie lottery"; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Cochran and unanimously 
approved. 

ACTION 
3. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENT OF STREET 
ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE (continued from 2/14/01 meeting) 

Responding to a question submitted by the Commissioners at the last Program Committee 
meeting, Deputy City Attorney Adine Varah stated that her office concluded that neither the 
Charter nor the street artist ordinance nor Administrative Code Section 10.02 requires the Street 
Artists Program to spend all of its existing surplus revenue in the current fiscal year. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that he would like the City Attorney's response "in writing because 
that's simply a statement, and it has no corresponding points or authority backing it up." Mr. Clark 
went on to refer to a tape and excerpted transcripts of two Board of Supervisors' Finance 
Committee hearings in 1991, which he had sent to the Program Director; in the hearings, Mr. 
Clark said, Supervisor Terence Hallinan stated that he was opposed to a street artist fee increase at 
the time but that he voted for it based on the Arts Commission's representation by Mr. Lazar that 
if a surplus resulted from a higher fee, the Arts Commission would notify the Board of 
Supervisors of the surplus so that the fee would be reduced accordingly. Reading from the 
transcript, Mr. Clark quoted Supervisor Hallinan as follows: " '...I... have to go along with that but 
I will represent to you that if at the end of the year, Mr. Lazar, I would ask you to please keep 
track of this ... to the end of the year. If there is a surplus of more money being taken in from the 
fees of people than is being spent to legitimately administer it, you let us know about it and let's 
consider readjusting those fees and bringing them down.' " Mr. Clark also quoted Supervisor 
Hallinan as follows: " '...Well, it seems to me what we have to do is that we really can't tell Mr. 
Lazar how to run his program but we do have his representation that if he builds a surplus up in 
the program, that will be used to reduce the fees. Based on that, I would move the item.' " Mr. 
Clark stated that, "based on that representation, I would still request that you reduce the fee 
regardless of any legal definitions or interpretations ..." 

Commissioner Stermer requested Program Director Lazar to respond. Mr. Lazar stated that, while 
he had not listened to the tape, his interpretation, nine years ago, of the Supervisor's caution 
regarding "building up the surplus" was that the Supervisor meant "an intentional buildup of a 
surplus, which was never our intent." At that time, he said, the Program was facing a deficit, and 
that was why the Commission was before the Supervisors requesting a fee increase. The Program 
Director went on to say that, during the past year (2000), he had asked the City Attorney's office 
whether the Program's recent, gradual utilization of the surplus to shore up its current deficit was 
adviseable or whether the Program was mandated to use up the entire surplus in the ensuing year, 
and the verbal response he had received was that the Program was not mandated to use up the 
entire surplus at one time, that the Program could do so if it wished, but that this should be a 
policy decision of the Arts Commission. 

Director of Cultural Affair Richard Newirth stated that, from what had been said, it appeared that 
if the Program in a given year would be running a surplus, Supervisor Hallinan had wanted to 
consider adjusting the fee. "In reality," Mr. Newirth said, "what's happened over the previous ten 
years - most of the previous ten years - is the fee has been insufficient to cover the expenses, and 
it's been a drawing down of the surplus to keep the fee at the current level.... In other words, it's 
not a question of the current fee being too high to cover the expenses" which, he felt, was the issue 
being discussed by the Supervisors in 1 99 1 . Currently, he said, the fee "is insufficient to cover the 
expenses, and surplus is being used to make up the difference." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 6 of 13 



Commissioner Cochran stated that, in noting "a dramatic deficit in the last couple of years ... I 
think it would be imprudent to reduce fees while we're operating at a substantial deficit. I just 
think it would be bad business. And it seems like that surplus is funding what would otherwise be 
an increase in fees if it didn't exist; so it's staving off a possible increase at some point in the 
future." The Commissioner concluded that if the fee were not raised, at the very least it should 
remain the same while the Program continues to draw from the surplus until a later time. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth stated that, from the discussions he had with the City 
Attorney's office, "clearly the intent is not to amass a surplus." Mr. Newirth's recommendation, 
based on his "concern about the Program's longevity," was to allow the current fee to remain 
while a gradual increase is considered as the surplus is depleted, rather than to drop the fee 
significantly and then let it climb back up to where it was and beyond. 

Commissioner Stermer concurred. Referring to other areas of business and economies he had 
observed, the Commissioner stated that it was unfair to cut a price dramatically and then double it 
the next month. 

Mr. Newirth stated that it would be a different matter if there was an anticipated continuation of 
the surplus at the existing level or if the Program was at a balanced budget level; in such cases, the 
Commissioners might consider a fee reduction. But the existing gap between the income and the 
expenses was growing each year, and by the fifth or sixth year the fund was expected to be 
exhausted and a fee increase would be required. Mr. Newirth again recommended eventual 
consideration of a gradual fee increase while the surplus would be reduced to a "prudent reserve" 
of at least 10% - 20% ($15,000 - $30,000) of the Program's operating cost. Two years from now, 
Mr. Newirth might approach the Committee with a recommendation for a fee increase, even with 
an existing surplus, "because otherwise the shock is going to be so great in two more years." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that such a plan sounded "reasonable." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that his Committee would "expect" Mr. Newirth's "prediction, 
because it would be far worse to have to double the fee in five years ... Then you really would 
deplete the ranks of the street artists, horribly." 

Mr. Newirth concluded that the question was, essentially, which year to raise the fee and how 
much it should be incrementally in order to support the Program entirely. 

Commissioner Cochran moved that the item be tabled; the motion was seconded by Commissioner 
Freebairn-Smith and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST TO THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS FOR EXCESS CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE DEPOSITED INTO 
GENERAL FUND FROM 1972-80 (continued from 10/1 1/00 meeting) 

The Commissioners referred to two questions they had submitted to the City Attorney from the 
Program Committee meeting of October 11, 2000. The written responses were received by the 
Commissioners and staff shortly before the present meeting. 

The first question asked at the October 1 1th meeting was as follows: Do the funds collected under 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 7 of 13 



Article 24, from 1972 to the present, constitute a trust fund and shall only be used for the 
purposes for which they were raised? The City Attorney's memo response of March 14, 2001 
stated the question as follows: Does the City hold "in trust" license fees collected under the Street 
Artists Ordinance from 1972 to May 1999, before the Board of Supervisors established a 
separate, special fund for the Street Artists license fees? And the City Attorney's "Short Answer" 
was as follows: No. Because the Street Artists Ordinance did not expressly and permanently set 
the license fees collected under the Ordinance apart from the General Fund and did not 
automatically and continuously appropriate such fees for specific purposes from 1972 to 1999, 
the City did not hold such fees in trust. The memo's "Conclusion" stated: We conclude that the 
City does not hold in trust the Street Artist license fees collected during the period from 1972-99. 
As a result, the City did not have any additional special fiduciary duties with respect to such fees 
during that period apart from the other duties it already had with respect to the administration of 
such fees under the Municipal Code, Charter or California law. 

The second question asked at the October 1 1th meeting was as follows: Does Section 10.117-123 
(c) of Ordinance 151-99 (Street Artists Fund) mandate that all fees collected previously by the 
Street Artists Program be deposited into the Program's fund? The City Attorney's memo response 
of March 14, 2001 stated the question as follows: Does Section 10.100-32(a) of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code require the Controller to deposit to the Street Artist Fund any funds other 
than the funds remaining in the Controller's existing Street Artist Fund Account (also known as 
No. 2S-CRF-ACB) as of the effective date of that section? And the City Attorney's "Short Answer" 
was as follows: No. Section 10. 100-3 2 (a) does not require the Controller to deposit to the Street 
Artist Fund any funds other than the funds remaining in the Controller's existing Street Artist 
Fund account as of the effective date of that section. 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that a copy of each of the City Attorney responses had been 
given to Street Artist Bill Clark. 

Mr. Clark stated that he "completely disagreed with" the responses, that, in his opinion, the street 
artist fees constituted a trust fund, and that he and his brother would have to take the issue to 
court. He went on to say that the Urban v. Riley case mentioned in the response "doesn't do what 
the City Attorney represents it to do." 

Mr. Clark introduced for the record a chart which the Clarks had composed of "YEARLY 
INTEREST FROM 1991-2001 COMPOUNDED QUARTERLY"; the chart computed quarterly 
what the interest would be on the surplus in the street artist fund from 1991 to 2001 (had such 
interest been credited to the fund prior to the fund's establishment as interest-bearing in 1999). Mr. 
Clark maintained that the chart showed that the Program's surplus, had it garnered interest, would 
have continued to build even during the recent deficit years. 

Mr. Clark introduced a second chart which the Clarks composed of "STREET ARTIST 
CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURE FROM 1991-2001." Mr. Clark pointed 
out that at the beginning of 1991 the Program had a surplus of $1 1,758, and that was at the time 
the fee was increased. The chart computed what the interest would be from that time forward. Mr. 
Clark stated that, "assuming we didn't get any of the old money," the chart showed how the 
interest would have accumulated on the fund during just the last decade: the interest would have 
been "$74,283.40", thereby making the total present surplus "$177,218.25." 

Mr. Clark went on to show from his chart that the surplus in 1992-93, the Program accumulated a 
surplus of "$53,098" due largely to salary savings after elimination of the Art Inspector position 
from the budget. Mr. Clark stated that he did not believe that the general fund was entitled to any 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 8 of 13 



interest on the Program's money because the Program is a special fund which, he said, as a special 
fund, is by law entitled to its interest. Supporting his statement, Mr. Clark submitted a list of 
"RELEVANT SAN FRANCISCO CODES AND CASES"; a list of sections under the heading 
"California Civil Code, ARTICLE 2 (OBLIGATION OF TRUSTEES)"; a list of sections under 
the heading "California Probate Code"; and a list of cases under the heading "California Case 
Law." Mr. Clark stated that these supported his opinion that it was illegal to co-mingle the funds. 

Mr. Clark submitted to the Commissioners a copy of a March 7, 2001 letter to the Program 
Director in which, according to Mr. Clark, the City Attorney's responses were contradicted with 
opinions from the California Attorney General relating to trust funds and special funds. According 
to Mr. Clark, three such opinions listed in his letter asserted that "special funds are trust funds," 
four opinions asserted that "end-of-the-year surplus derived from a special fund cannot go into the 
City's general fund," and two opinions asserted that "interest from a special fund goes into the 
special fund and not into the City's general fund." 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth, through the Chair, asked Mr. Lazar to respond to the 
following question: When the Art Inspector position was eliminated - which was the impetus for 
the surplus - why wasn't the fee reduced? Mr. Lazar responded that the Commission wanted to see 
how the Program would progress economically - that is, whether the fee revenue at the time would 
support the Program's increasing costs. 

Commissioner Stermer noted, from Mr. Clark's figures, that roughly 25% of the budget had been 
trimmed by the elimination of the Art Inspector position. Mr. Lazar responded: "But then our 
expenses kept climbing. As I recall, I don't think that we were that secure in feeling that we would 
maintain that 25% margin for the next few years; I think our feeling was 'let's see how it goes' as 
'our expenses keep increasing.' " Commissioner Stermer concurred with this; Director of Cultural 
Affairs Newirth stated: "That's the point I'm making." 

Commissioner Freebairn Smith questioned the definition of "trustee", who the trustee would be, 
and the trustee's role in this matter; would it be the Arts Commissioners? the City of San 
Francisco involving the Mayor and/or the Board of Supervisors? 

Mr. Newirth responded that the Commissioners had received a City Attorney opinion which, in 
essence, stated that the City and the Arts Commissioners were not trustees. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that the Clarks had said that, if they were to exhaust their 
administrative remedies, they would pursue the matter legally. From the Commissioner's point of 
view, the administrative aspect had ended; "the opinion that's come to us seems pretty firm and 
pretty definitive to me, despite the arguments." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Cochran about the wording of the agenda item, Mr. 
Newirth clarified that if the Commissioners were to determine, despite the City Attorney's 
opinion, that the Commission's position was such that the Street Artists Program relinquished 
funds in the 1970s before the Program was given its own special fund, a request would be initiated 
for the difference in fees between the revenues and the expenses for that period of time as well as 
any interest earned thereon. Such request for a supplemental appropriation would be submitted by 
the Director of Cultural Affairs, upon authorization by the Commission, to the Mayor; the Mayor's 
office would have to approve it, and it would then be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for 
final approval. At that time, the Commissioners would be expected to make their arguments 
before the Board that the Program was entitled to receive the funds - but this was not the advice, 
he said, which the Commissioners had received from the City Attorney. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam031401.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 9 of 1 3 



In response to a request by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith for a staff recommendation, Mr. 
Newirth stated that, "given the City Attorney's opinion as well as political reality, my 
recommendation is not to submit the supplemental request." 

Commissioner Stermer, addressing the "political reality" issue, stated that he could not see "this 
particular Board or this particular Mayor turning over funds ... but, conceiveably, I can see a 
judge" weighing "the merits" and so ordering it. 

Commissioner Cochran stated that "what the Clarks have presented may well be correct," but they 
and she were not attorneys, whereas the only attorney with whom the Commissioners could 
consult for recommendation was the City Attorney; "I wouldn't feel comfortable ...making an 
opinion based on" the Clarks' information nor to consider that the information bore "more weight 
than the City Attorney's office. ... Since we only have one legal opinion at this point, that's the 
legal opinion" which the Commissioners should follow. "So I could not recommend that we 
bring" a request for supplemental appropriation "to the Mayor..." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that "our advisors are telling us not to pursue this, but we 
are placed in this role ... to advocate the street artists and their program and the Arts Commission; 
and it's a commission that is notoriously badly funded in this city. So when an opportunity to 
recover funds or to ... conceiveably advance one of the Arts Commission's programs by an 
unforeseen return from a judgment, as a commissioner, it would seem to me I have to advocate, at 
least investigate ...But ... I've been around long enough to see how long it takes this town to digest 
an item like this: it would probably be ten years before we get a judgment on it ..." The 
Commissioner concluded by saying that "if it is a political matter, political advocacy can work in 
this town." 

Commissioner Stermer responded that "if the City Attorney had said 'fine, let's go ahead with it,' I 
would have said 'who cares about the political reality?' ...Then I think we're bound to the street 
artists ... to go for it." 

Deputy City Attorney Varah clarified that "this is our legal advice to you; whether or not you 
pursue an appropriation is a business decision for you to make as commissioners ... We're not 
advising you whether or not to do one thing or the other; we're just giving you the advice on what 
we think" is the law. 

Mr. Newirth clarified that the City Attorney is the City Attorney for the Arts Commission, for the 
Mayor, for the Board of Supervisors, for the City, "so that that is your advisor." 

To which Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that "many describe that as a conflict of interest, 
that no set of attorneys could represent those different interests, but in fact we do it as a City, we 
do it all the time. ..." 

Commissioner Stermer responded that "if I were carrying this package, knowing that the City 
Attorney ... who's also the Mayor's City Attorney and the Board of Supervisors' City Attorney ... 
that hearing would get less play than in an independent courtroom ... And having had ample 
experience with Bill Clark, I would imagine he'd be an impassioned and very articulate 
spokesperson for this." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith sought assurance that, if a court were to agree with the Clarks' 
position, the Commissioners would not be considered as having been "derelict in our roles, that 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 10 of 13 

we've let some other process find that money and award it to the Arts Commission." 

Program Director Lazar responded that, as an observer, he did not feel the Commissioners had 
been derelict in their responsibility to addressing the issue: "You have listened to this issue for 
nearly two years; you have requested and received written City Attorney opinions ... There were 
former opinions received ... I've deliberately detailed my minutes for the reason to show the world 
that you are actively pursuing every angle of this ... keeping an open mind ... I'm not an attorney, 
but I feel that" it "would be well defended ..." that the Commissioners were "not derelict in their 
responsibility, that they had more or less turned over every stone in this issue." 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that the Clarks had invested a great deal of "intelligent, 
good, strong, informed effort" on the issue. He stated that there were three choices of direction to 
take at today's meeting: (1) the item could be continued to the next month for further 
consideration; (2) the Commissioners could vote to submit a supplemental appropriation; or (3) 
the item could be tabled which would effectively end its administrative consideration. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved to table the item; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Cochran and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 
5. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF DAILY 

LOTTERY FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES AT PT. LOBOS ("CLIFF HOUSE SPACES') 
AND REPLACEMENT WITH THREE-DAYS-A-WEEK LOTTERY SYSTEM TO BE 
HELD AT 8:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY 

Program Director Lazar informed the Commissioners that, with regard to Items V, VI, and VII, he 
had received telephone calls and correspondence from street artists who could not be present at 
the meeting and who requested that the Commissioners not take action on these items until next 
month's meeting when the artists would be present to testify. 

With respect to the three items, the Commissioners had received copies of a December 1, 2000 
letter by Street Artists Bill Clark, Bob Clark, and Edward Steneck which proposed and gave 
reasons for (1) the elimination of the daily lottery for Pt. Lobos spaces and its replacement with a 
three-day-a-week lottery system; (2) the elimination of the use of the space-sharing "Buddy" 
system at the Pt. Lobos spaces; and (3) the elimination of the exclusive use of the Leavenworth 
Street spaces by portrait artists. 

The Commissioners acknowledged the letter's stated reason for the first proposal (Pt. Lobos 
lottery): " 'The Art Commission does not have the legal authority to establish a daily lottery. 
Section 2406 subsection B of Article 24 explicitly mandates the Art Commission to specify three 
days in each week for the holding of a lottery for selling areas which are designated by the Board 
of Supervisors. 1 " Program Director Lazar informed the Commissioners that the provision for a 
three-days-a-week lottery system was followed by the Program's two main lotteries: the lottery for 
spaces at Fisherman's Wharf and the lottery for spaces in the Downtown area. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that the lottery provision was not part of the ballot street artist 
ordinance but was part of an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors and subject to the 
Board's amendment. He went on to say that he did not believe the Arts Commission had the 
authority to designate any lotteries other than three-days-a-week lotteries. He himself did not 
participate in the Cliff House (Pt. Lobos) Lottery because "it's too easy to lose" in a daily lottery, 
and he did not want to participate "in an illegal process." He requested that the Commission 
adhere to the language of the ordinance's lottery provision and replace the present daily Cliff 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam031401.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 1 1 of 13 

House Lottery with a three-days-a-week lottery. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck explained how the present Cliff House Lottery worked: the artists 
place poker chips in a bag which is shaken at 8:00 a.m. or 8:30 a.m., depending on the day; the 
first three chips that are pulled out of the bag correspond to three winners who are entitled to sell 
that day; a fourth person, referred to as an "alternate", may take the place of any one of the three 
who relinquishes (for whatever reason: illness, flat tire, etc.) the space. Mr. Steneck further stated 
that he has been selling, when fortunate to obtain one of the three spaces, at the Pt. Lobos spaces 
for twenty years; "I go to the Cliff House almost every day of my life." In the last twenty-nine 
days, he said, he has won a space only twice; nine years ago, he lost twenty-eight days in a row. 
"The problem with this lottery is that there are a lot of street artists who would like to go to the 
Cliff House but don't go to the Cliff House because they know they can go out there endlessly and 
keep on losing ...If we had the same kind of lottery as we have" for the Downtown and the Wharf 
lotteries (whereby the artists' pulled numbers afford them the opportunity of selling either on the 
day of the lottery or the next day, or the third day if it's a weekend lottery), the first nine artists 
whose chips would be pulled out, for example, on a Saturday would be guaranteed a space to 
work on either Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. If this were to occur, "more people would be 
interested in working at the Cliff House if they felt they had a reasonable chance of getting a spot 
occasionally" but, with the present lottery system, "they know they could go on losing." As a 
result of the present system, Mr Steneck said, "we have the same people out there all the time: me, 
for example, and another group of people who are out there almost every single day ... because 
they are ... working together and, as a result, monopolize the lottery out there" by utilizing the 
space-sharing "Buddy" system. 

Mr. Steneck went on to say that that the proposal to change the lottery into a three-days-a-week 
lottery would involve "a small and simple change." The lottery, he said, would continue to be run 
as it always had by the artists who are present at the three Pt. Lobos spaces; the typical Lottery 
Committee member and three street artist helpers required to run the Wharf and Downtown 
lotteries would not be needed for the Cliff House Lottery; and, unlike the Wharf and Downtown 
lotteries, no one would get a free space for running the Cliff House Lottery. The only change 
occuring would be that, instead of pulling three "people out of the bag, we would continue pulling 
enough for the two- or three-day period." If an artist on Saturday was the ninth to be pulled, he 
would not be able to sell on Saturday but would know that he could sell in one of the three spaces 
on Monday; as a result, he can "plan his life" accordingly and not have to waste gasoline going 
out to the spaces every day, etc. 

Mr. Steneck stated that there were twenty artists who showed up for the Cliff House Lottery last 
Saturday; the number typically increases during summer, possibly thirty on Saturdays and 
Sundays. Summing up, Mr. Steneck said the proposed three-days-a-week lottery would greatly 
increase artists' odds in obtaining a space, would save the artists unnecessary trips to Pt. Lobos, 
and would allow the artists to better plan their lives. 

Street Artist Chrys Camperlino stated, in opposition to the proposal, that while some people may 
have obtained a Pt. Lobos space twice in twenty-eight days, "we have records to show that another 
single person won fourteen out of twenty-three days." Hs further stated that he had been selling at 
Pt. Lobos for three or four years and there were months when his wife and he sold there six times 
and there were months when they have sold there fifteen times. Last Saturday, he said, twenty 
people participated in the lottery and it took ten minutes; "if we had to write" lottery "slips for 
everybody, it would take us a half hour. ... to list everything the proper way. He said that he 
routinely goes to Pt. Lobos every day just "to make sure that everybody signs up" - the proposed 
lottery change, therefore, would not save him time. The current average lottery, he said, involves 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 12 of 13 



eight or nine artists; for the weekends, it is ten to fifteen. The Cliff House Lottery, as it is, is a 
small lottery; many artists choose to make more money, oftimes, at the Wharf or Downtown. "To 
change a lottery that's worked for twenty-five years doesn't make any sense." When the 
Commissioners heard this issue a few years ago, "there were people" at the present meeting "who 
were passionate about not changing something that worked. ... Eddy has had a string of bad luck. 
... I could also show you the books where there were months when Eddy was on ten times, and I 
got on for five. ... It's a matter of the draw." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Camperlino said that an artist who is not 
selected in the Cliff House Lottery usually has time to drive down to the Wharf to participate in the 
Wharf Lottery; that was why, he said, the Cliff House Lottery was held at eight a.m. 

Mr. Camperlino lauded the simplicity of the present system which involved poker chips which 
prohibit cheating, as the chips cannot be folded. 

Street Artist Steven Goldberg stated that his understanding of the lottery rules in the Program's 
"bluebook" was that any artist who runs a lottery is awarded a choice of a space for that day; in 
addition, for accountability to the Program Director who has the power to dismiss lottery 
committee members, there should be a lottery committee as well as lottery "helpers". 

Street Artist Alex George stated that if she missed the Saturday Wharf Lottery due to her car 
breaking down, "I'm axed out Saturday, Sunday, and Monday ... There are no alternatives for me." 
In reference to the daily Cliff House Lottery, "this way every day ... everybody has a chance." 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that for Chrys Camperlino and Alex George "to make this excuse 
that if they do this new way they're going to have to come out here just to see if they have a 
chance - they have to come out there every day now anyway." He calculated that, with the present 
daily lottery, if twenty people showed up every day, the odds were twenty to three against 
winning a space "every single day; whereas if" the lottery were held for a three-day period, "my 
odds of selling on Monday will be lowered to twenty to nine - almost two to one. So that's a big, 
drastic difference between twenty to three and two to one odds of getting a spot." 

Street Artist Julio Bonilla stated that he felt Bob Clark was "wrong because ... I can get number 
one, my wife can get number six. ..." 

Street Artist Bill Clark, in response to Street Artist Steven Goldberg's comments about 
administering the Cliff House Lottery, stated that, according to Mr. Goldberg, there should be a 
committee member and helpers "right now"; however, because the Arts Commission has the 
authority to write the lottery rules, there did not necessarily have to be a member and helpers at 
the Cliff House Lottery. Furthermore, "the way you solve the problem is that on the second day 
you know who's going to be out there the next day because they have the numbers ..." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Cochran as to why the situation was "different" for the 
Pt. lobos spaces than for the other spaces, Program Director Lazar stated that there have always 
been only three spaces at the site, and the three spaces have always been isolated: "You have to 
travel two-and-a-half, three miles to find" the next street artist location. It was also the Program 
Director's understanding that the artists who originially created the Cliff House Lottery created it 
as a daily lottery without requiring a committee to run it; similarly, the Wharf and Downtown 
Lotteries were originally created by street artists who molded those lotteries to suit their needs. 
Several years later, the Arts Commission acquired jurisdiction over the lotteries through an 
ordinance. The Cliff House Lottery, therefore, "was already in place with its ways of doing things 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | March 14, 2001 Page 13 of 13 

before Section 2406 was written." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that the item would be continued. 

Commisioner Stermer clarified with the Program Director that Item VI, regarding the possible 
elimination of the space-sharing "Buddy" system at the Pt. Lobos spaces, would probably attract 
many arguments, pro and con, from additional testifiers; and Item VII, regarding the possible 
elimination of the long-time exclusive use of the Leavenworth Street spaces by portrait artists and 
cartoonists, would probably attract many arguments, pro and con, relating to possible expansion 
of selling opportunity, from many testifiers who could not be at the present meeting (many of 
them being out of the country at this time of year) but who had indicated their attendance at the 
next meeting. The Commissioner stated that, with the exception of receiving further testimony 
from anyone who could not attend the next meeting, he would consider continuing these items. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that he wanted to submit an amendment to the proposal of the 
"Buddy" system relating to the Pt. Lobos spaces before a hearing on the issue would be continued. 
While originally he had proposed that the system be eliminated entirely from the three spaces, he 
now proposed that the system not be eliminated but be restricted to a condition which would 
provide that "anyone who is assigned one of the three spaces on a given day cannot, after being 
assigned one of the three spaces, vacate that space and then buddy-up with" either occupant of the 
other two spaces which, he said, would have resulted in the occupying of a space by an artist 
benefitting from "inside information." 

The Program Director requested that Mr. Clark send him the proposed amendment in written form 
for forwarding to the Commissioners in advance of their next meeting. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked the street artist attendees whether they felt "the Cliff House 
market is essentially saturated by three sales positions, or whether" they could increase their odds 
"beneficially with the number of people who normally come to the" lottery "by increasing the 
number of places to sell" if the area could permit for locations. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck replied in the affirmative: "We could support more spaces, yeah.... 
We could use a few more people." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that the rest of the items of the agenda would be continued. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned; the motion was seconded 
by Commissioner Cochran and unanimously approved. 

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
March 23, 2001 

http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam03 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1, 2001 



file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Page 3.0/Pages/saa041 101.htm 



771 SAN FRANCISCO 
ac" ARTS COMMISSION 



o:n6 



A// 



o\ 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA, 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2594. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
.Agenda 

APR - 6 2001 



ACTION 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF DAILY 
LOTTERY FOR STREET ARTISTE SPACES AT PT. LOBOS ("CLIFF HOUSE 
SPACES') AND REPLACMENT WITH THREE-DA YS-A-WEEK LOTTERY 
SYSTEM TO BE HELD AT 8:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND 
SATURDAY 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/1/00 letter by William Clark, Robert Clark, and Edward Steneck, 
copies of a 3/13/01 letter by Alex George, copies of a 3/11/01 letter by Marilyn Burkhart, and copies of a 
3/13/01 letter by Toney Burkhart were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program 
Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness 
Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF ARTS 
COMMISSION "BUDDY" SPACE-SHARING SYSTEM FOR PT. LOBOS SPACES 

(continued from 3/14/01 meeting) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/1/00 letter by William Clark, Robert Clark, and Edward Steneck, 



4/3/01 10:50 AM 



I 



FAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Page 3.0/Pages/saa041 10 

copies of a 3/27/01 letter by Julio F. Bonilla, copies of a 3/13/01 letter by Alex George, and copies of a 
3/13/01 letter by Toney and Marilyn Burkhart were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists 
Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 
Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
IE. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT TO ARTS 
COMMISSION "BUDDY" SPACE-SHARING SYSTEM FOR PT. LOBOS SPACES, 
TO PROHIBIT ANY ARTIST ASSIGNED TO A PT. LOBOS SPACE FROM 
VACATING THE SPACE AND SHARING ANOTHER PT. LOBOS SPACE 
(continued from 3/14/01 meeting) 

ACTION 
IV. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE MOVING OF LOTTERY 
FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES AT PT. LOBOS ("CLIFF HOUSE SPACES") 
FROM PT. LOBOS TO BEACH STREET (WHERE LOTTERIES FOR 
FISHERMAN'S WHARF SPACES AND FOR DOWNTOWN SPACES ARE HELD) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 3/23/01 letter by Pepper Cracas and Martin Butschek were provided to 
the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at 
the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 

ACTION 
V. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF 
EXCLUSIVE USE OF LEAVENWORTH STREET SPACES ("L-l" THROUGH 
"L-10") BY PORTRAIT ARTISTS, CARTOON AND "FUNSKETCH" ARTISTS) 

(continued from 3/14/01 meeting) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/1/00 letter by William Clark, Robert Clark, and Edward Steneck were 
provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the 
public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.) 

DISCUSSION 
VI. HEARING TO DISCUSS AMENDING SAFETY REGULATIONS GOVERNING 

STREET ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 41-83, SEC. 2405, REGULATIONS FOR 
STREET ARTISTS) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/25/00 letter by William and Robert Clark were provided to the 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the 
Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 

ACTION 
VII. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO SUBMIT ORDINANCE TO BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS AMENDING ARTICLE 24 OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE CODE 
(ORD. 451-94) BY DELETING SECTION 2402(C) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER 
OF MEETINGS/STUDIO VISITS OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF 
STREET ARTISTS AND CRAFTSMEN EXAMINERS TO TWENTY-FIVE (25) 
MEETINGS/STUDIO VISITS A YEAR OR COMPENSATION OF $2,000 A YEAR 

(In refernce to this item, copies of a 1/29/01 letter by William Clark were provided to the Commissioners of 
the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists 
Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Fridaj | 

of 3 1/3/0 1 1 1 



Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1, 2001 file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Page 3.0/Pages/saa041 101.htm 



) 



DISCUSSION 
VIII. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
X. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
April 3, 2001 



) 



) 



4/3/01 10:50 AM 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5 163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ WWW.ci.sf.ca.US . 



c 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1, 2001 



Page 1 of 14 



siFISAN FRANCISCO 
a c" ARTS COMMISSION 



^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2594. 

^Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Rod Freebairn-Smith, Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: Andrew Brother Elk, Andrea Cochran 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk 

In attendance were street artists Julio Bonilla, Martin Butschek, Chrys Camperlino, Juduan 
Chen, Juli Choi, Bill Clark, Bob Clark, Gerard Pepper Cracas, Frankie Law, Sharon 
MacDougall, Edward Steneck, Sun Ting Xiu 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:16 p.m. 

Program Director Lazar submitted a letter from Street Artist Bill Clark requesting that a 
correction be made to the minutes of the Program Committee meeting of March 14, 2001. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that the minutes of the Street Artists Program 
Committee meeting of March 14, 2001 be corrected by adding, between paragraphs 5 and 6 
of Item IV, prior to the sentence "Mr. Clark introduced for the record a chart which the 
Clarks had composed of 'YEARLY INTEREST FROM 1991-2001 COMPOUNDED 
QUARTERLY' ", the sentences "Mr. Clark first presented to the Committee a document 
which was titled 'STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE REVENUE OVER 



http ://sfac . sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam04 1101 .htm 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 2 of 14 



EXPENDITURE FROM 1972-2001.' That document indicated that the surplus plus 
the interest accruing on the surplus would amount to $1,016,401.69 at the present 
time"; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 



DISCUSSION 

1. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar reported that it was discovered that the recent passage of a 
new ordinance administering special funds deleted two major provisions of the 
ordinance authorizing interest on the Street Artists Program's special fund. 
Previously, in 1999, the Board of Supervisors enacted Ordinance No. 151-99 which 
provided that (1) interest "be credited by the Controller on any balance of funds 
accumulated" in the "Street Artist Fund" and that (2) "All donations of money and 
other gifts which may be offered to the San Francisco Arts Commission for Street 
Artists Program purposes" be "accepted for such purposes" and "deposited into said 
fund." In December, 2000, however, the Board of Supervisors replaced the street 
artist fund ordinance with a new, broader ordinance regarding the administration of 
special funds, Ordinance 316-00, which placed the street artist fund under 
S.F. Administrative Code Sec. 10.100.32 and, in so doing, amended the original 
ordinance by (1) establishing the street artist fund "as a category four fund" which, 
like all "category four" funds, earns interest only when the balance in the fund 
"exceeds $50,000" and (2) deleting the provision for acceptance of gifts. Upon 
learning of this, Mr. Lazar immediately wrote to the City Attorney's office requesting 
that an ordinance amendment draft be prepared to restore the two provisions. 

Responding to questions by Commissioner Roth, the Program Director stated that he 
would submit the ordinance draft to the Board of Supervisors' Finance Committee. He 
expressed gratitude in learning of the oversight at this time while the Program's fund 
balance was in excess of $50,000. 

ACTION 

2. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF 
DAILY LOTTERY FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES AT PT. LOBOS ("CLIFF 
HOUSE SPACES") AND REPLACEMENT WITH THREE-DAYS-A-WEEK 
LOTTERY SYSTEM TO BE HELD AT 8:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY, 
THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY (continued from 3/14/01 meeting) 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, in response to criticism by some artists, he was the 
person who initiated the idea of making the Pt. Lobos Lottery a three-day-a-week 
lottery, and that he had asked Street Artist Edward Steneck to endorse the proposal 
with Mr. Clark and his brother in a letter to the Arts Commission. Furthermore, he 
stated, his proposal had nothing to do with any personal conflicts presently going on 
between some artists. He went on to describe his proposal to include the drawing of 
numbers (for the three spaces) to be held at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and 
Saturday, which would give artists who do not obtain Pt. Lobos spaces plenty of time 
to travel to the Wharf in time for the lotteries held there. 

Mr. Clark rested his proposal on Section 2406(b) of the street artist ordinance which 
http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1, 2001 Page 3 of 14 



mandates the Arts Commission to "specify three days in each week for the holding of 
a lottery for selling areas which are designated by the Board of Supervisors." Unless 
the Commission wished to request the Board of Supervisors to amend the ordinance, 
he said, the Commission was "bound" to implement the provision. The benefit of a 
three-day-a-week lottery, he said, was that it would give artists the opportunity to find 
out whether their pulled numbers afforded them usage of the spaces that day or the 
next day or (in the case of a weekend lottery) the third day; in this way, the artists 
would not have to waste time going out to Pt. Lobos every day to see if they could get 
a space. Lastly, Mr. Clark proposed that the Commissioners consider adopting the 
change for a six-month trial basis. 

Street Artist Gerard Pepper Cracas requested that this agenda item be either 
considered with the hearing on a proposal to move the Pt. Lobos Lottery to the 
Wharf, or considered after that hearing. The present discussion, he said, on the time 
factor for artists attempting to participate in Pt. Lobos and Wharf lotteries would be 
moot if the Pt. Lobos lottery were moved to the Wharf. He went on to say that all the 
other lotteries of the Program were held at the Wharf. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar advised 
that, while the two issues were related, the Committee's consideration and possible 
vote on the principle of making the Pt. Lobos lottery a three-day-a-week lottery could 
be independent of the Committee's consideration of the lottery's location. 

Street Artist Martin Butschek stated that the two issues were "interrelated" and urged 
that they be discussed at the same time. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he had no objection to artists testifying to 
relationships between the items so long as the artists kept their statements pertinent to 
the item being considered by the Committee. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck urged the Commissioners to follow the order of the 
agenda. He read a statement in support of the proposal for a three-days-a-week lottery 
system for the Pt. Lobos spaces which pointed out that this "very small and simple 
change" would allow the lottery to "still be run as it always has been by the people 
who go out there; the only difference would be that, instead of just pulling three 
people out of the bag, we would continue pulling enough people for the two- or three- 
day period - therefore, more people who go to the lottery would actually get a chance 
to work." He went on to say that it would also save the artists "unnecessary trips" to 
Pt. Lobos and would allow them to "plan" their "lives better". He added that, because 
the "Cliff House Lottery", which "only takes five minutes" to run, would continue to 
be small, the artists running the lottery, unlike their counterparts who run the other 
lotteries, would not get a free space for their effort. 

Street Artist Sharon MacDougall stated that she has been participating in the "Cliff 
House Lottery" for twenty years, that it has "been a big part of my life," and that it 
should remain the same in operation except for the requested "small change" of 
making it a three-days-a-week lottery. She went on to say that she felt it would give 
participants a better opportunity for working, that it would be "better for single 
artists" as well as for "couples", and that it was important to maintain the lottery's 
time as 8:00 a.m. so that the artists would have time to prepare for the major part of 
the tourist trade which is brought by the tour buses in the morning. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101 .htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 4 of 14 



Street Artist Martin Butschek stated that he "drove four hours just to be part of this 
hearing," that he has been selling at Fisherman's Wharf for twenty-five years and 
"never had the real opportunity to be part of the Cliff House Lottery." That lottery, he 
said, works for a certain amount of street artists who have quick access to its location. 
He went on to say that, several years ago, a petition of three hundred street artist 
signatures was submitted to the Street Artists Program Committee, requesting that the 
"Cliff House Lottery" be moved to the Wharf "to give everybody an ample 
opportunity to be part of the Cliff House Lottery." He questioned how, at the present 
time, a disabled person would be able to participate in the "Cliff House Lottery" and 
be able to reach the Wharf in time to participate in the Wharf or Downtown lotteries; 
"for that reason, no, it has not worked for every street artist." 

At the time the petition was submitted, Mr. Butschek stated, the Street Artists 
Program Committee was also considering eliminating the "Leavenworth Street 
Lottery," and he and other cartoon artists "were approached by other artists who are 
present now not to be against" maintaining the "Cliff House Lottery" at its present 
site in exchange for those artists not speaking up to eliminate the "Leavenworth Street 
Lottery." Today, he said, the "Leavenworth Street Lottery" and the "Cliff House 
Lottery" were "so intermingled now ... seem to be all one part of the agenda here." He 
went on to say that the majority of artists who could speak on these issues were not 
present, and that "by shear incident" he read the agenda mailed to him and saw that 
these matters were coming up before the Committee; he had responded to the 
Program Director that Mr. Cracas and he wished to be part of the hearing. 

Street Artist Chrys Camperlino stated that he spoke at last month's Committee 
meeting against the proposed change for the "Cliff House Lottery" but, since then, 
discussed the matter with the Clark brothers and others and no longer objected to it. 
Furthermore, it was his opinion that, as a member of a family unit, his opportunity in 
obtaining a Pt. Lobos space would increase under the proposed change. With respect 
to the petition about moving the lottery as mentioned by Mr. Butschek, he stated that 
the petition had not had three hundred signatures; at the Program Committee meeting, 
he said, two people showed up in favor of moving the lottery, while forty-one people 
showed up in favor of keeping the lottery at its present site. He stressed the 
importance for artists to keep the lottery at Pt. Lobos so that they could see for 
themselves what the weather is like on a given day - for example, an artist who sells 
brass jewelry, traveling from the sunny Mission District, might find inclement 
weather at the Cliff House that would not be conducive to selling brass jewelry. 

Mr. Camperlino further pointed out that the Pt. Lobos spaces do not lend themselves 
favorably to cartoonists because the tourists alighting from the buses are on a time 
restriction to shop rapidly and leave. 

With respect to artists having to go from one lottery to another, Mr. Camperlino 
stated that Muni buslines served the area well. 

Commissioner Stermer ascertained that there was no one present opposed to the item. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith ascertained from the Program Director that there 
were no outstanding letters (not seen by the Commissioners) received by the Program 
expressing opposition to the proposal. 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam04 1101 .htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1, 2001 Page 5 of 14 



Commissioner Roth received explanations from several of the artists present on 
details of how the three-days-a-week system worked for the other lotteries. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that the daily lottery for street artist spaces at 
Pt. Lobos ("Cliff House spaces") be eliminated and replaced with a three-days-a- 
week lottery system to be held at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday; the 
motion was seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 
3 HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF 
ARTS COMMISSION "BUDDY" SPACE-SHARING SYSTEM FOR PT. 
LOBOS SPACES (continued from 3/14/01 meeting) 

Street Artist Bill Clark requested that this item, which he had originally submitted, be 
withdrawn as he would be endorsing, in its place, an amendment to the "Buddy" 
space-sharing system for the Pt. Lobos spaces. 

Commissioner Stermer ascertained that no one present objected to tabling the item. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that Item III, "HEARING AND POSSIBLE 
MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF ARTS COMMISSION 'BUDDY' 
SPACE-SHARING SYSTEM FOR PT. LOBOS SPACES", be tabled; the motion was 
seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 
4. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT TO 
ARTS COMMISSION "BUDDY" SPACE-SHARING SYSTEM FOR PT. 
LOBOS SPACES, TO PROHIBIT ANY ARTIST ASSIGNED TO A PT. 
LOBOS SPACE FROM VACATING THE SPACE AND SHARING 
ANOTHER PT. LOBOS SPACE (continued from 3/14/01 meeting) 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that he did not want to be "portrayed as being against 
the 'Buddy' system" as he was the one who, several years before, invented and 
submitted the "Buddy" space-sharing system to the Arts Commission. He was now 
proposing an amended version of the system with respect to the three Pt. Lobos 
spaces only. 

In response to questions by Commissioners Roth and Stermer, Mr. Clark and Street 
Artist Edward Steneck described the present situation whereby three artists will win 
the spaces in their lottery, the rest of the artists who participated in the lottery will 
leave to try to get a space at the Wharf or Downtown, and one of the three artists will 
"buddy-up" or share the space of one of the two other artists, leaving his or her space 
vacant for the possibility of another artist (who may not necessarily have attended the 
Pt. Lobos lottery but "heard" about the vacant space becoming vacant ahead of time). 
By moving into the vacant space, that artist "jumps" ahead of the next artist (the 
"alternate") in line from the lottery who would have qualified to be the rightful 
inhabitant of the space but who is no longer present to claim the space. To remedy the 
situation, Mr. Clark was proposing that any artist who signs up for one of the three Pt. 
Lobos spaces be prohibited from vacating the space and "buddying-up" or sharing 
with either of the two artists who sign up for the other two Pt. Lobos spaces. This 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 1 01 .htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 6 of 14 



amendment to the "Buddy" system would not prohibit any of the three claimants of 
the spaces from sharing his or her space with any artist other than the two other space 
claimants; nor would it prohibit the claimant from merely vacating the space. 
Mr. Clark asked that the Commissioners consider adopting the amendment on a six- 
month trial basis, to which Commissioner Stermer responded that this would not be 
necessary as the Committee could always review it in six months or whenever. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he felt the proposed amendment was "an elegant 
solution." The Commissioner ascertained that no one present was opposed to the 
proposal. 

Commissioner Roth moved that the "Buddy" space-sharing system be amended for the 
Pt. Lobos spaces to prohibit any artist assigned a Pt. Lobos space from vacating the 
space and sharing another Pt. Lobos space on the day the artist is assigned the 
space; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith and unanimously 
approved. 

ACTION 
5. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE MOVING OF 
LOTTERY FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES AT PT. LOBOS ("CLIFF 
HOUSE SPACES") FROM PT. LOBOS TO BEACH STREET (WHERE 
LOTTERIES FOR FISHERMAN'S WHARF SPACES AND FOR 
DOWNTOWN SPACES ARE HELD) 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that on previous occasions Street Artists Gerard 
Pepper Cracas and Martin Butschek had urged the Commission to move the "Cliff 
House Lottery, and that this was "their automatic response every time anything about 
the Leavenworth spaces comes up; it's their way of getting even." In the twenty years 
he himself had been selling at Pt. Lobos he had never seen either Mr. Cracas or Mr. 
Butschek sell in that area, even though "they drive motorcycles - they could get out 
there in no time at all." Mr. Steneck alleged that Mr. Cracas and Mr. Butschek had 
never "shown any interest in" the Pt. Lobos spaces "except as a matter of revenge, 
because... the spot they love to sell in ... is 'Leavenworth-1' - they don't want anybody 
else to have a crack at it, because it's an exclusive spot for funsketch people ..." 

Street Artist Martin Butschek stated that he used to live on 43rd Avenue, that he had 
worked at Pt. Lobos several times, and that he "only saw a certain amount of street 
artists" who "were the same ... people." He surmised that this was because "the group 
representing the Cliff House Lottery are the ones who have the interest of the lottery 
being there." He expressed the opinion that it would be "fair" to have the lottery 
moved to the Wharf, so that all artists could meet at one central location "to decide 
where they would like to work" on any given day. It would, he said, give "everybody 
an ample opportunity to decide" whether they "would like to work Downtown today " 
or "at Fisherman's Wharf or "at the Cliff House." He alleged that the reason the Pt. 
Lobos artists wanted to keep their lottery at Pt. Lobos was because they were 
"double-dipping": holding a lottery to obtain the Pt. Lobos spaces and then running to 
the Wharf to enter a Wharf or Downtown lottery to obtain a second space for the day. 
This, he said, would be remedied if the Pt. Lobos lottery were moved to the Wharf 
enabling everyone to observe whether an artist signed in for a Pt. Lobos space and 
then attempted to sign in for another space: "Double-dipping will be eliminated." 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam04 1101 .htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 7 of 14 



Street Artist Gerard Pepper Cracas stated that the "Cliff House Lottery" in its present 
location was "extremely restrictive" as it did not permit people without cars or people 
who were handicapped enough time to participate in the lottery and go to the Wharf 
for the other lotteries. He went on to say that in the past a large number of artists 
signed a petition in favor of moving the "Cliff House Lottery" to the Wharf, that 
many of those who signed it "are Asian, and Asians - a lot of them out there - have a 
language problem, and they feel intimidated to come in person here and try to speak 
up; another reason is Asians often" take a position "of sitting back and not rocking the 
boat or being active in something ... and that's what happened ... last time." Also, he 
said, many people did not speak up because they could not afford to lose work and 
come to the meeting. Because of these factors, he said, the issue at that time was not 
settled. Only one person - "Maria from Brazil", he said - spoke out in support of 
moving the Pt. Lobos lottery to the Wharf but "could not be understood." 

Mr. Cracas objected to the present location of the "Cliff House Lottery" because of its 
"double dipping possibility": artists could enter the lottery and work at Pt. Lobos, 
then come to the Wharf and obtain a lottery slip affording them a space in which to 
work again, thereby having "an advantage over all other street artists." 

Addressing the issue of the artists having time to be set up for business with early 
tour buses, Mr. Cracas stated that the lottery for the Pt. Lobos spaces should occur at 
8:00 a.m. 

Lastly, Mr. Cracas stated that it was not economically feasible to drive out to Pt. 
Lobos for the remote possibility of obtaining one of three spaces. 

Street Artist Julio Bonilla stated that he has worked at Pt. Lobos for four years, and 
that he helps to guide the tour buses into their parking area which qualifies him to 
assess the number of buses that arrive on a daily basis. A bus arrives at 8:30 a.m., and 
eighteen to twenty buses arrive between 9 and 1 1 :30 a.m., the heaviest selling period 
for the artists; whereas only two to three buses arrive between 2 and 3:00 p.m. If the 
"Cliff House Lottery" were moved to the Wharf, the artists would not be able to get to 
their Pt. Lobos spaces until 9:30 a.m. and would lose much business. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that the issues raised by Mr. Cracas dealt with the Pt. 
Lobos lottery being a daily lottery, whereas it was now going to be a three-days-a- 
week lottery which thereby would resolve the issues. Mr. Clark went on to say that he 
used to be in favor of moving the lottery to the Wharf, but he was convinced by Mr. 
Bonilla's point that many of the tour buses arrive early and that the lottery should be 
kept at Pt. Lobos and should occur at 8:00 a.m. He requested that the new lottery 
system be observed for six months to see if it would resolve the problems discussed 
by Mr. Cracas; if it would not, the Commissioners at that time could consider moving 
it to the Wharf. 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Clark what the significant difference would be 
between having the Pt. Lobos Lottery at 8:00 a.m. in its present location, allowing 
artists who do not get the spaces to participate in the lotteries at the Wharf, and 
having the Pt. Lobos lottery at 8:00 a.m. at the Wharf and allowing artists who get the 
spaces enough time to go to Pt. Lobos: "It's a one-way scurry, whichever way it 
goes." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 8 of 14 



Mr. Clark responded that it would not be advantageous to the winners of an 8:00 
lottery at the Wharf because by the time they arrived at Pt. Lobos they would still 
have already lost business with one busload of tourists. 

Commissioner Stermer pointed out that, while this may be true, the majority of the 
artists - the ones who did not win the spaces - would not have to go anywhere but stay 
for the next Wharf or Downtown lottery. 

Mr. Butschek stated that the reason proponents wanted to keep the lottery at Pt. 
Lobos was because it eliminates the opportunity for other artists to enter their lottery. 

Street Artist Chrys Camperlino stated that "the main reason for holding the lottery at 
the Cliff house is because it's out at the end of the world where the weather is 
different," and that artists on any given day have to experience the weather in order to 
determine whether they wish to sell there. 

Street Artist Sharon MacDougall stated that the artists have a habit of selling in 
places they like: the "same" people tend to sell Downtown and the "same" people 
tend to sell at the Wharf, or at Pt. Lobos. 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that the "concept of bringing" the Pt. Lobos lottery "to 
the Wharf and holding it at an early hour" would not be practical in view of the fact 
that, even with the present 9:00 lottery, "ninety percent of the people get there in the 
last five or ten minutes" and artists would not be inclined "to get up at seven o'clock 
to go down to the Wharf to take a chance of getting three ... spots; I'll go down to the 
Wharf at nine o'clock to take a chance on getting" one of "fifty spots at the Wharf or 
fifty spots Downtown." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, Street Artist Julio Bonilla described 
the frequency of tour bus arrivals during the day at Pt. Lobos: the first bus at 8:30 
a.m.; most buses between 9-1 1:30; six buses between 12-2:00 p.m.; and only a few 
buses between 3-5:00 p.m. Mr. Bonilla stated that it was not always the same artists 
who sell every day at Pt. Lobos. 

Mr. Cracas reiterated his point that leaving the Pt. Lobos lottery in its present locale 
promoted "double-dipping" for the Pt. Lobos artists. 

Mr. Butschek urged the Commissioners to give everyone "a fair chance" to 
participate in the Pt. Lobos Lottery; by keeping it in its present locale, he said, 
handicapped street artists "don't have an opportunity to be part of the Cliff House 
Lottery." 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that, while he was "overwhelmed by the 
compassion shown by" Mr. Butschek and Mr. Cracas "and their talk about double- 
dipping," he, Mr. Steneck, "sold one day in twenty-one years illegally" and "Howard 
caught me", whereas "some people don't even need numbers, and those two" (Mr. 
Butschek and Mr. Cracas) "don't need numbers, they sell illegally all the time!" 

Amidst retorts by Mr. Butschek and Mr. Cracas, Commissioner Stermer observed that 
any charge levied against any artist was not an agenda item of today's meeting and 
therefore would not be considered by the Committee. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1 , 2001 Page 9 of 14 



Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that "in a rational world, it sounds, to a person 
who is not going to lotteries for a living, that it would be nice to have" the lotteries 
"collected in one place" so that if an artist failed to obtain a space in the earliest 
lottery, he or she could have an opportunity to obtain one in the next lottery. This 
seemed "logical; however, there's a long body of experience here" and "the 
overwhelming weight of testimony seems to be to leave" the lottery for Pt. Lobos in 
its present location. He was inclined to not change it. 

Commissioner Roth stated that "the weather" at Pt. Lobos was incomprehensible "and 
positively unexplainable" and that she found no reason to move the lottery to the 
Wharf. 

Commissioner Stermer referred to the advice given him by the Committee's previous 
chair, Commissioner Emery Rogers, which was that " 'the best thing most of the time 
is if it sort of works, leave it alone, unless you hear really hard screaming from the 
other side'. " While he, Commissioner Stermer, would welcome reviewing the Pt. 
Lobos issue in the future, he was not persuaded that any street artist who wanted to 
sell at Pt. Lobos was hindered from doing so. Furthermore, he was not persuaded that 
it was "a bad thing that the same people go out there on a regular basis." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith noted that the Committee was not being presented 
with "a terrific history of abuse" at Pt. Lobos; if it were, it would be a factor which he 
would consider in moving the lottery. With respect to the alleged "double-dipping" 
practice, the Commissioner noted that there was "a certain equity" in that all street 
artists - not just the Pt. Lobos artists - could, if they wished, participate in both the Pt. 
Lobos lottery and a lottery at the Wharf. 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that Bill Clark had "made some very good 
points", one of which was that, by having a three-days-a-week lottery, the chances for 
abuse would be minimized. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved to table the item; the motion was seconded 
and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF 
EXCLUSIVE USE OF LEAVENWORTH STREET SPACES ("L-l" 
THROUGH "L-10") BY PORTRAIT ARTISTS, CARTOON AND 
"FUNSKETCH' ARTISTS) (continued from 3/14/01 meeting) 

Program Director Lazar outlined the history of the use of the Leavenworth Street 
spaces, some of the oldest spaces in the Program. From the beginning, they were 
inhabited exclusively by portrait artists and cartoonists who found the street to be 
sheltered from the wind and therefore comfortable for customers to sit for their 
portraits for relatively long periods of time. While presently many portrait artists and 
cartoonists draw and sell on other streets, even windy ones like Beach Street, the 
majority of the portrait artists and cartoonists continue to work and sell on 
Leavenworth Street. 

The Program Director went on to say that the last time the Program Committee heard 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101 .htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 10 of 14 



this issue was in 1997 when arguments were heard for and against making the 
Leavenworth spaces available to all street artists. At that time, also, Christopher 
Martin, General Manager of The Cannery, opposed making the spaces available to all 
artists, and the Committee made no motion to do so. Eventually, the Committee (and 
the full Commission) voted to eliminate the "Leavenworth Street Lottery", thereby 
requiring portrait artists and cartoonists to obtain their Leavenworth Street spaces 
(still for their own exclusive use) in the regular Wharf lottery. 

In December, 2000, the Program received a letter from Street Artists Bill Clark, Bob 
Clark, and Edward Steneck, requesting a hearing to consider eliminating the 
exclusive use of the Leavenworth Street spaces by portrait artists and cartoonists. The 
letter stated that the practice of allowing only portrait artists and cartoonists to use the 
spaces was "an illegal amendment of Resolution 572-75 and Ordinance 483-75 
(Proposition 'L' , the Street Artist Ordinance, adopted by the voters at the November, 
1975 Municipal Election) which authorized the Board of Supervisors, by resolution to 
designate sales areas where any street artists previously certified may sell art or craft 
items." The letter stated also that "Such illegal amendment violates Section 390 of the 
San Francisco Election Code which prohibits the amendment of a ballot measure 
except by a subsequent vote of the people." 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, if the Committee chose to continue the item, he 
would locate and submit a copy of a City Attorney opinion written in the 1 970s which 
clarified that the Arts Commission did not have the authority to assign quotas of 
street artists of specific crafts to any block of spaces as this would be a violation of 
the street artist ballot measure. Mr. Clark said that this clarification had bearing on the 
present item. 

Mr. Clark went on to quote language of the resolution designating the ten 
Leavenworth Street spaces and other locations as areas " 'where any' " (emphasis 
added) "street artist or craftsman previously certified may sell art or craft items ...' " 
From this language, Mr. Clark concluded that it was clear that the Board of 
Supervisors intended, in designating street artist locations, that all street artists would 
be allowed to have the opportunity to use all the designated locations. While it has 
been the Commission's tradition to allow the Leavenworth spaces to be used 
exclusively by the portrait artists and cartoonists, and while Mr. Martin of The 
Cannery has, in the past, argued to maintain the tradition, Mr. Clark stated that Mr. 
Martin's preference was in conflict with the law. "We're all supposed to have an 
opportunity to every spot, and 'Leavenworth- 1' is probably the best spot in the whole 
city. ... It's right in the middle of the Fisherman's Wharf area." 

Street Artist Juli Choi stated that she was a portrait artist and that "Leavenworth 
Street is a quiet street compared to other streets at the Wharf " mainly because the 
flow of tourist pedestrians does not go through that block but goes through Jefferson 
Street. The only street artist space on Leavenworth Street which is "very good," she 
said, was "L-l" , the first space (corner of Leavenworth and Jefferson Streets). 
Traditionally, the portrait artists have chosen Leavenworth Street because of the 
weather conditions. If spaces "L-l" and "L-2" were to be inhabited by other types of 
artists, as, for example, jewelry artists, the portrait artists in the remaining spaces 
would not be able to do business because the public would not be inclined to go 
beyond the jewelry artists. As it is now, the portrait artists on Leavenworth Street rely 
on having "L-l" inhabited by a fellow portrait artist who, by demonstrating his or her 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam04 1101 .htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1, 2001 Page 1 1 of 14 



drawing skill, serves as an initiator inviting the public to meander to "L-2,", "L-3", 
etc., to observe the work of the other portrait artists. 

Ms. Choi further stated that elsewhere it is difficult to have a subject sit in the wind 
for a portrait, especially during summer; and that it takes approximately forty-five 
minutes for a sitting. She added that the reason some portrait artists are seen in other 
locations is that during summer there are not enough spaces on Leavenworth Street to 
accommodate all of them, and during winter the wind stops which makes it conducive 
for portrait artists to set up elsewhere. 

Street Artist Martin Butschek, a cartoon ("funsketch") street artist, stated that three 
years ago both the Leavenworth spaces issue and the Pt. Lobos spaces issue were 
heard at the same time. At that time, it was decided to let the "Cliff House Lottery" 
remain and the "Leavenworth Lottery" to be eliminated and to let the Leavenworth 
Street spaces remain for the exclusive use of the portrait artists and cartoonists who 
were now required to obtain their spaces in the "Wharf Lottery." The idea, Mr. 
Butschek said, "was essentially to bring the portrait lottery back into the main 
lottery ..." He acknowledged that street artists other than portrait artists wished to be 
able to sell in "L-l" and that was essentially what this issue was all about. 
Nevertheless, three years ago, he said, the Committee decided not to make that space 
nor the other nine spaces available to other artists. 

Street Artist Gerard Pepper Cracas, a cartoon ("funsketch") street artist, stated that 
there is a doorway at the corner of The Cannery adjacent to "L-l", and The Cannery's 
owner, Christopher Martin, "mentioned to us that he's keeping that closed because the 
portrait artists create a Paris-Montmartre or a tradition that is as deep as the cable 
cars ..." He went on to say that he himself has been drawing in that location for forty- 
two years during which the location was known as "a portrait area." He added that 
Mr. Martin, "being surrounded by competition to his stores all around him, had 
mentioned that if he loses that ambiance of portrait artists, he's going to open that 
door ; if he opens that door, 'L-l' and 'L-2' " will be "eliminated because they're too 
close to the door. So what they're fighting for - this 'L-l' - they're going to lose 
anyway." 

In response to a question from Commissioner Roth, Mr. Cracas stated that he did not 
have a letter from Mr. Martin asserting what Mr. Cracas had just stated. 

Program Director Lazar stated that it was his understanding that the two spaces, "L-l" 
and "L-2", were designated by the Board of Supervisors which exempted them from 
the regulation mandating a street artist space to be not within twelve feet of a 
doorway. 

Mr. Cracas went on to say that Leavenworth Street has almost no tourist traffic "that 
'L-l' stops them and brings them in" to see the other artists. He urged the 
Commissioners to follow the advice of former Committee chairman Emery Rogers: 
"If it's not broken - it works - don't fool with it." 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that "it doesn't work" because he, Mr. Clark, who 
helped create the Program almost thirty years ago, had "never, ever been able to sell 
on that street." He went on to question the rationale behind Mr. Martin's alleged 
decision to keep the door by "L-l" closed for one type of artist and his alleged threat 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 12 of 14 



to open it with the advent of another type of artist. Mr. Clark also disagreed with the 
argument that the public is inclined to visit the other portrait artists on Leavenworth 
Street only when there is a portrait artist in "L-l"; if the spaces were inhabited by a 
diversity of craftspeople, as a silversmith, a leathercraftperson, etc., "that might draw" 
the public "down the street. Maybe the problem that they're having is that they do 
have too many of the same people down that street ..." 

Mr. Clark described how, when he is unable to obtain a space on Beach Street 
through the lottery, he sees five or six vacant spaces on Leavenworth Street, but he is 
not allowed to sell in those spaces because he is not a portrait artist or a cartoonist. It 
would be one matter if all ten spaces on Leavenworth were occupied, but it was 
another matter when he viewed many of those spaces unoccupied during winter and 
he himself, as well as his customers, would not mind getting out of the wind. He 
could not sell on Leavenworth Street because "I'm a craftsman, I feel like a second 
class citizen." Lastly, he stated that "the law is clear," and that he would appreciate 
the Commission opening the spaces to all artists. 

Street Artist Juduan Chen stated that he was a portrait street artist and that he had 
heard that the issue of opening the spaces to all artists had come before the 
Commission in the past and had been overruled. The spaces, he said, "belong to the 
portrait street artists and the cartoonists. This place is important for us." 

Street Artist Martin Butschek stated that Christopher Martin has always been 
supportive of the street artists "in different aspects"; but "if he decides to open the 
door, then 'L-l' and 'L-2' will be eliminated." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar stated 
that it was his understanding that the two spaces are exempt from the doorway 
regulation regardless of whether or not the door is open. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he would like to see the item continued for a month 
to allow time for the Committee to see the City Attorney opinion referred to by Bill 
Clark and to possibly receive more data on the issue. The Commissioner commented 
on the nature of the issue by saying, "Off-the-top logic, nobody should have 
preferential treatment at any spaces anywhere." 

Commissioner Roth stated that "there is a larger crowd, for better or for worse, in 
front of the caricaturists, in front of the portrait artists ..." On one day she observed a 
crowd of forty people watching a portrait artist drawing a family portrait, and the 
crowd was in the middle of the street; "I just don't know where you would get that 
kind of space on most of those streets to have that kind of crowd; that's one of the big 
things that worries me. ... Conversely, I'm a little bit upset about the fact that ... you 
can't get a space ... and half of those spaces on Leavenworth are empty." A possible 
remedy for consideration might be an option to allow such spaces, if vacant, to be 
used by any type of street artist. 

Mr. Lazar responded that he was uncertain as to whether the Commission had the 
authority to adopt such a sanction in view of the fact that "a group of people" would 
still be excluded from having "first crack at a" Leavenworth "space", and such a space 
might be construed as having been reserved "for a certain class of artist." 
Commissioner Stermer stated that if, on a weekend, a Leavenworth space remained 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam04 1101 .htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 1 1, 2001 Page 13 of 14 



vacant, he felt it would be improper not to allow any type of street artist to use it; 
otherwise, it seemed "grossly unfair ... Those spaces should be filled at all times." 

Street Artist Frankie Law, a cartoonist, stated that when Leavenworth spaces are 
vacant, other spaces at the Wharf are vacant as well. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that he was on the Committee when this issue 
was last reviewed and, at the time, his "theory was" that "worldwide street markets - 
and even whole sections of cities - cluster the sale of related goods because customers 
like choice; the market is driven by the preference of customers to compare and 
choose ...Customers like being able to look at groups of things." He went on to say 
that the street artist lottery system "obviates that" by not allowing for the creation of 
"clusters in this Program ..." He himself had "voted for the clustering of the artists on 
Leavenworth on that theory"; nevertheless, he stated that he was "troubled by the 
equity" issue: artists other than portrait artists or cartoonists were not permitted to 
select Leavenworth spaces. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved to continue the item; the motion was seconded 
by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

Reviewing the the lengthy agenda, Commissioner Stermer stated that the remainder 
of the items would be continued with the exception of the item relating to 
"PUBLIC COMMENT." 

DISCUSSION 
7. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

Street Artist Bill Clark referred to a recent letter he sent to the Program Director, 
requesting a re-hearing on the previous month's items relating to a possible 
adjustment of the street artist certificate fee and a possible submittal of a 
supplemental appropriation for excess certificate fee revenue deposited into the 
General Fund from 1972-80; he reiterated this request "on the basis that" he had 
"some new evidence that" he wished "to present ... in the form of another Attorney 
General opinion that is in total opposition to the City Attorney opinion on the issue of 
the interest to trust funds". In addition, he would submit "a City Charter section - 
9.1 13 - which is also in conflict with the City Attorney opinion." 

Relative to the recent City Attorney opinion regarding "trust funds," Mr. Clark 
submitted copies of the text of the Urban v. Riley case which, he said, was the 
primary case upon which the City Attorney's office based its opinion. He asked that 
the Commissioners read the case, and he said that "nowhere in this case" was there 
"support for what" the City Attorney had "stated; "in fact, the case actually supports" 
Mr. Clark's "premise in that it basically says that if an ordinance contains language 
stating that the money at the end of the year can be transfered into the general fund, 
then, yes, those portions of that money get transferred into the general fund ... and 
those funds are not considered trust funds; however, it clearly says that that's only if 
the ordinance contains that language; whereas" the street artist "ordinance doesn 't 
contain that language" and "this case says that if the language isn't included within the 
original ordinance, then all the revenue funds are trust funds." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101 .htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 11, 2001 Page 14 of 14 

According to Mr. Clark, the City Attorney had stated that "there's nothing in the 
Charter, there's nothing in the ordinance, there's nothing in the Administrative Code 
that says that surpluses should be used for the next year," whereas Mr. Clark "found 
Charter Section 9.1 13." Referring to the "new fund" re-codified in a recent ordinance, 
Mr. Clark stated there was "a reference to Charter Section 6.306 ..." and he found that 
"6.306 is 

Section 10.02; there is no longer a Section 6.306" because "it's been re-codified in 
Section 10.02"; Mr. Clark wanted clarification on this by the City Attorney. 

Commissioner Stermer adjourned the meeting at 5:09 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
April 20, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam041 101 .htm 1 1/26/2003 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/agenda/2001/st_arts/saa050901.html 



771 SAN FRANCISCO 
ac ARTS COMMISSION 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, May 9, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

MAY - I 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 

~~ PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2594. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 



^Agenda 



ACTION 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF 
EXCLUSIVE USE OF LEAVENWORTH STREET SPACES ("L-l" THROUGH 
"L-10") BY PORTRAIT ARTISTS, CARTOON AND FUNSKETCH" ARTISTS 

(continued from 4/1 1/01 meeting) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/1/00 letter by William Clark, Robert Clark, and Edward Steneck were 
provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the 
public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.) 

DISCUSSION 
n. HEARING TO DISCUSS AMENDING SAFETY REGULATIONS GOVERNING 
STREET ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 41-83, SECTION 2405, REGULATIONS 
FOR STREET ARTISTS 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/25/00 letter by William Clark and Robert Clark were provided to the 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the 
Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 



4/26/01 12:21 PM 



^rAL | Mreet Artists nogram committee | May y, zuui nttp://srac.srsu.eau/meetings/agenaa/zuui/st_arts/saaUDUyui. 

ACTION 
m. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO SUBMIT ORDINANCE TO BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS AMENDING ARTICLE 24 OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE CODE 
(ORD. 451-94) BY DELETING SECTION 2402(C) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER 
OF MEETINGS/STUDIO VISITS OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF 
STREET ARTISTS AND CRAFTSMEN EXAMINERS TO TWENTY-FIVE (25) 
MEETINGS/STUDIO VISITS A YEAR OR COMPENSATION OF $2,000 YEAR 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 1/29/01 letter by William Clark were provided to the Commissioners of 
the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists 
Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

DISCUSSION 
IV. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
V. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
VI. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
April 23,2001 



f2 4 26/01 12:21 P 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to.conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ WWW.ci.sf.ca.US . 



1 



c 



I 



I Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901.html 



"771 SAN FRANCISCO 
ac ARTS COMMISSION 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, May 9, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JUN - 1 MM 

S AN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2594. 

.Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrew Brother Elk, Andrea Cochran, Rod 
Freebairn-Smith, Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: None 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk 

In attendance were street artists Juduan Chen, Juli Choi, Bill Clark, Bob Clark, Frankie Law, Jian 
Xiong Qu, Edward Steneck, Qiang Wu, Sun Ting Xiu 



Commissioner Stermer called the meeting to order at 3:1 1 p.m. 

ACTION 

I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ELIMINATION OF EXCLUSIVE USE 
OF LEAVENWORTH STREET SPACES ("LI" THROUGH "1-10") BY PORTRAIT 
ARTISTS, CARTOON AND "FUNSKETCH" ARTISTS (continued from 4/1 1/01 meeting) 

At the request of Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar reviewed the history and related 
pros and cons of this issue previously heard by the Committee. Mr. Lazar referred to a recently 
received letter from Mr. Christopher Martin, President of The Cannery, who urged the 
Commissioners, as he had in 1997, to continue reserving the Leavenworth Street spaces for the 
exclusive use of the portrait artists. Mr. Lazar noted that Mr. Martin's letter echoed a point raised by 
Commissioner Freebairn-Smith at the previous month's hearing: portrait artists successfully 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901 .html 

exemplified a clustering type of marketing or, as Mr. Martin put it, "a 'critical mass' or a 
concentration of the like to provide the public with an opportunity to compare style, final product, 
price, etc. ..." 

With the consent of the Commissioners, Mr. Lazar read into the record a letter from two street artists, 
Gerard Pepper Cracas and Martin Butschek, who had testified at the previous month's hearing but 
could not be present at today's hearing. According to the letter, "the Leavenworth portrait area was 
first established in the late 1950's - 12 years before the Street Artists Program was created. ... This 
Leavenworth area, for the past 42 years, has developed into a unique part of San Francisco similar to 
Montmartre in Paris. ... 40+ years certainly qualifies this area for a 'grandfather' status ..." The letter 
urged the Commissioners to retain the Leavenworth Street spaces for the exclusive use of the portrait 
artists and cartoonists. Accompanying the letter were photographs of the portrait artists working in the 
spaces. 

Street Artist Bill Clark, in opposition to such exclusive retention, read from an October 31, 1986 
opinion from the City Attorney; the opinion responded in the negative to a proposed rule by the Arts 
Commission to limit street artist family unit displays to one per block of designated sales spaces. 
According to the opinion, "By letter dated March 31, 1977, this office previously advised you that 
neither the Commission nor the Board [of Supervisors] was empowered by Proposition L to limit the 
total number of street artist certificates or the percentage of each craft represented in the Street 
Artists Program. Likewise, Proposition L does not authorize limiting family unit members, who are 
licensed as individual artists, to one display per single block of designated sales spaces as a device to 
promote diversification of crafts in the program . ..." The opinion further stated that "the 'lottery' 
provisions [Police Code Section 2406] enacted by the Board only authorize the Commission to enact 
rules and regulations necessary to implement and supervise the lottery system, " and therefore the rule 
proposed by the Arts Commission "may only be adopted pursuant to the voters' amendment of 
proposition L. " Mr. Clark defined the words "to implement" as "to carry into effect" and the words "to 
supervise" as "to direct or inspect the performance of." From this opinion, Mr. Clark maintained that 
the Arts Commission "doesn't have the authority to designate who could use the spaces. ... what craft 
or what individuals ... or put any limitation whatsoever on the use of those spaces." 

Mr. Clark presented as "an affidavit" a copy of a letter written in 1974 by Street Artist Dale Axelrod, a 
cartoonist, which, Mr. Clark said, contradicted Cracas and Butschek's assertion that Leavenworth 
Street was fostered as a portrait area since the 1950s. According to Mr. Clark, "it was totally illegal for 
street artists to sell anywhere in Fisherman's Wharf," and this was evidenced by Mr. Axelrod's 1974 
letter which related how he was prohibited from setting up to do portraits on Leavenworth Street by 
The Cannery manager, Mr. Klein, who told Axelrod, (according to the letter) "that he had already told 
two artists that they couldn't set up and paint alongside The Cannery because they would create a 
pedestrian traffic problem with people stopping to watch them. He said he would call the police if 
necessary . ..." The letter further related that, upon Mr. Axelrod's refusal to leave, the manager called 
the police, and, with their arrival, the artist packed up and left. Mr. Clark stated that this letter was 
evidence that street artists Cracas and Butschek were "misleading" the Commissioners into believing 
that it was appropriate for artists to sell on Leavenworth Street with the approval of The Cannery for 
the past forty-two years. Mr. Clark asserted that it was not until July, 1974 (passage of the street artist 
initiative known as Proposition "J") that "any street artist could operate legally in the Fisherman's 
Wharf area." 

Street Artist Frankie Law, a cartoonist, stated that he used to be a portrait artist, and that, before 1975, 
there were few such artists; since then, many portrait artists joined the Program and created a problem 
for other types of artists by being able to enter both the regular lottery for Wharf spaces and the 
Leavenworth Street Lottery whose spaces were for the exclusive use of portrait artists and cartoonists. 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edii/meetings/miriutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901.html 

The problem was eventually corrected by the Arts Commission when it eliminated the exclusive 
Leavenworth Street Lottery and required portrait artists and cartoonists to obtain their Leavenworth 
spaces in the regular Wharf lottery. Mr. Law went on to say that he spoke with the portrait artists, and 
a "compromise" they favored was the adoption of a rule restricting any portrait artist to choose, during 
a lottery period, either a Leavenworth Street space or a non-Leavenworth Street space - that is, the 
Leavenworth Street Lottery would be re-instituted, and any portrait artist choosing to participate in the 
Leavenworth Street Lottery, in a given lottery period, could not participate in the regular Wharf 
Lottery, even if he or she is unable to obtain a Leavenworth Street space. 

Mr. Law further stated that usually non-portrait artists got angry when they found themselves set up 
next to a portrait artist whose crowd interfered with their business. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck responded that the non-portrait artists felt "it was a question of fairness, 
not a question of anger." 

Street Artist Bob Clark, through the chair, thanked Mr. Law for trying to find a solution. Mr. Clark 
stated that he did not feel it was an issue "of whether we make money next to each other or we don't 
make money next to each other; I had one of my best days ever set up next to Lefty" (Barry Prager, a 
cartoonist). Rather, he saw the situation as a matter of all the spaces being designated for use by all the 
street artists. 

Mr. Clark went on to say that he was offended by the letter written by The Cannery President 
Christopher Martin; Mr. Clark interpreted its message to mean that "street craftsmen who set up next 
to street artists are going to hurt street artists' and portrait artists' business." Referring to Mr. Martin's 
statement that the portrait artists "add a 'European' character" to the area, Mr. Clark stated that "as a 
Czechoslovakian- American, I think / add some European flavor to any area / go to." He urged the 
Commissioners to follow "the letter of the law" as exemplified by the ordinance's provision for the 
Board of Supervisors to designate spaces for all street artists to use. He refuted the assertion heard at 
the last hearing that a non-portrait artist would hurt the business of a portrait artist; he himself wanted 
the opportunity to see if he could make money in a Leavenworth Street space. 

Street Artist Juduan Chen stated that if a street artist were to sell jewelry on Leavenworth Street, it 
would "cost the whole street" of portrait artists. 

Street Artist Qiang Wu stated that, as a portrait artist in the Program for six years, he acknowledged 
that Leavenworth Street has been an area for portrait artists for forty-two years - "a long time." He 
went on to say that other types of street artists would not be able to make money there because the 
light changes to shadow at 1:00 in the afternoon; for this reason, other types of artists for the past 
forty-two years have not used the street. During all that time, Leavenworth Street has been "famous" 
as "portrait village" visited annually by returning tourists. "If you break it up," he said, it would be "no 
good for Fisherman's Wharf." 

Mr. Wu added that the portrait artists "are special workers on the street" who make customers stop and 
watch them perform their art. As it was, the ten spaces on Leavenworth Street were not enough to 
accommodate the more than twenty portrait artists in the Program. He suggested, out of fairness, a 
plan whereby the portrait artists would not be allowed to sell outside of Leavenworth Street. 

Through the chair, Street Artist Bill Clark responded to the portrait artists by stating that portrait 
artists have not been selling on Leavenworth for forty-two years. He went on to say that he personally 
felt the portrait artists "do help the public" and that he, a jeweler, liked having portrait artists sell next 
to him because they do "stop the public" and "make them get involved." Mr. Clark refuted the position 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901 .html 

that portrait artists and other types of artists selling next to each other would hurt each other's 
business. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar stated that he telephoned 
the City Attorney's office to ascertain the Commission's authority in this matter and was told that, 
while it could be argued that the intent of the law is to enable all street artists to use all spaces, it 
could be defended in a court that the Arts Commission has acted appropriately in reserving the 
Leavenworth Street spaces for the portrait artists and cartoonists; a court would likely give deference 
to the following reasons: (a) the Commission had inherited a practice which, according to some artists, 
had been in existence prior to the Street Artists Program; (b) the area in question has been 
traditionally known as an area set aside to attract customers for portrait artists and cartoonists; (c) the 
Commission has been the administering agency of the street artist ordinance and has interpreted the 
ordinance so as not to give an unfair advantage to certain artists over others but to increase the 
fairness of the lottery system in terms of the needs of a particular group of artists. Because Section 
1406 speaks of the Commission's authority to make "reasonable rules and regulations to effectuate the 
lottery," it could be argued - with a broad interpretation of the section - that the Commission 
effectuated the lottery to attempt to assist a type of artist whose craft has special needs (having a 
customer to sit for a length of time in a sheltered area) in order to make the Program a "level playing 
field" for the artist. 

Commissioner Stermer asked the Program Director whether, in his monitoring duties on the streets, he 
"sensed a groundswell of dissatisfaction" with the Leavenworth spaces being reserved for the portrait 
artists and cartoonists; were there many non-portrait artists who wanted to see this changed? Mr. 
Lazar responded that he had not had many artists request that it be changed; the arguments heard were 
presented by the artists at this hearing. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he, a "picture-maker," was not persuaded by the arguments 
presented in Christopher Martin's letter. 

Responding to a question by Commissioner Cochran in reference to the duration of Leavenworth 
Street's reputation as a portrait artist locale, the Program Director stated that he was not cognizant of 
the street's reputation forty-two years ago; his awareness of its being "portrait artist row" was not prior 
to 1974-75. Nevertheless, he noted that the reputation had been garnered for the past twenty-five 
years. Referring to what he had said earlier about the Commission's "inheriting" the portrait artist 
situation, he stated that in 1980 a group of portrait artists approached the Commission with a problem 
of "one kingpin portrait artist who wouldn't give up the corner spot" (Leavenworth Street at Jefferson 
Street); the "kingpin's" colleagues asked that the Commission create a special lottery to give equal 
opportunity to all portrait artists - "and that's how we really got into the act: we voted in a special 
lottery just to unseat that one" portrait artist. The Leavenworth Street Lottery lasted for seventeen 
years until the Commission repealed it in 1997 in order to eliminate what had become a double 
opportunity enjoyed by portrait artists who could participate for spaces in both their own Leavenworth 
Street Lottery and the regular Wharf Lottery. 

Commissioner Roth stated that she was bothered by the issue of many Leavenworth Street spaces 
going unoccupied on any given afternoon; "they should be opened up like the rest of the spaces" to 
any artist who chose to sell there. While a month ago the Commissioner was not willing to change the 
status quo, she now considered heavily not only the arguments to maintain the status quo but the 
arguments to change it. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith thanked all artists present for speaking on the issue. Concurring with 
Commissioner Roth, he stated that while he was sympathetic to not displacing the portrait artists, he 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901.html 

acknowledged the existence of "a serious fairness issue at the root of this democratic issue," the 
question of whether any street artist should have access to any designated space. However, had there 
been "overwhelming sentiment among the street artists ... a room full of people that wanted to change" 
the present system of reserving the exclusive use of the Leavenworth spaces for portrait artists, he 
would have voted to change the system. Because the majority of artists, he observed, were "not 
terribly worked up about this" and the present system was "working pretty well," the Commissioner 
wanted to consider amending the system to allow for empty Leavenworth spaces to be used by other 
artists. The Commissioner questioned whether such an amendment would engender an additional 
and/or difficult administrative task. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he did not feel it was fair to have Leavenworth Street spaces 
unoccupied and unavailable to artists other than portrait artists. He wanted to consider a mechanism 
whereby a non-portrait artist could obtain an unselected Leavenworth space after the lottery is 
finished, and to try the mechanism for a six-month period to "see if it satisfies some of these needs." 

Mr. Bill Clark stated that a portrait artist could have the last number in the lottery and get the best 
space. He asked that the Commissioners postpone a decision on the matter and obtain a written 
opinion from the City Attorney clarifying what the Program Director had said. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth stated that he perceived the position of the City Attorney to be 
such that either the existing system or the proposed system would be defensible. He recommended 
that, should the Commissioners choose to modify the system, the City Attorney be asked whether 
modifying the system would make the Commission's position less defensible. 

Commissioner Stermer agreed with Commissioner Freebairn-Smith that there was not a "groundswell 
of opposition" to the present system, that there was not a large number of artists "saying this is 
patently unfair." 

To this, Mr. Clark stated that if "the groundswell" was opposed to what he was proposing, "they 
would be here. The groundswell is here. I represent the other people." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Brother Elk as to how the mechanism would work to fill 
empty Leavenworth spaces, Program Director Lazar stated that one mechanism might be to allow the 
spaces to be offered first to portrait artists ranked in the normal lottery pullout and then, if still 
available, offered to non-portrait artists ranked in the normal lottery pullout. 

Commissioner Stermer noted that portrait artists selling alongside non-portrait artists in the 
Leavenworth Street spaces had never been tried, and that this might be a good opportunity to see if 
ample business could be had by both - at least on a trial basis for the summer season; and then, in the 
autumn, the Committee could revisit the issue. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith questioned the Program Director as to whether he thought the issue at 
hand would encourage other groups of street artists to seek the Commission's reservation of streets for 
their exclusive use. Mr. Lazar responded that he had not been approached by any group, other than the 
portrait artists, to have their own exclusive spaces. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that he felt "the compromise approach" or "the permeable 
boundaries approach" was worth pursuing, that to discard a twenty-seven-year tradition by opening 
the Leavenworth spaces to all artists on an equal selection basis could be too drastic a measure, 
whereas to allow for the Leavenworth spaces unoccupied by portrait artists to be occupied by 
non-portrait artists would be a reasonable step. If the Commission were to find, over a period of time, 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901.html 

that there is not overwhelming interest in the spaces by non-portrait artists, then the system could 
remain as is; or, if there is great interest, the Commission could consider steps toward opening the 
spaces to all artists on an equal selection basis. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Cochran, the Program Director estimated that there were 
about twenty portrait artists in the Program. 

Commissioner Stermer commented that twenty artists competing for ten spaces did not represent 
extreme odds. 

Commissioner Roth concurred that "ten spaces seems like an awful lot for twenty artists." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Brother Elk, the Program Director stated that presently not 
only could the portrait artists and cartoonists who do not get Leavenworth spaces be able to select 
spaces elsewhere but there were several portrait artists and cartoonists who have deliberately and 
consistently chosen not to sell on Leavenworth Street. 

Commissioner Stermer asked the Program Director to create a system whereby vacant Leavenworth 
Street spaces could be equitably given to non-portrait artists and to report on the system at the next 
Committee meeting. Mr. Lazar replied that he would like to meet with the artists as well as Lottery 
Committee members to come up with a suitable procedure. 

Commissioner Stermer moved that any vacant non-assigned Leavenworth Street space may be 
occupied by any street artist; motion subject to review by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded 
by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith and unanimously approved. 

The Commissioners and the Program Director noted that, by this motion, any street artist wishing to 
obtain a non-assigned vacant Leavenworth street space could do so either by participating or, if it is 
not necessary, by not participating in the lottery system. 

Commissioner Stermer thanked the Clarks for bringing the issue to the Committee's attention and 
thanked all artists for attending the meeting. 

DISCUSSION 

II. HEARING TO DISCUSS AMENDING SAFETY REGULATIONS GOVERNING STREET 
ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 41-83, SECTION 2405, REGULATIONS FOR STREET 
ARTISTS) 

Program Director Lazar referred the Commissioners to a December 25, 2000 letter from Bill and Bob 
Clark requesting "a hearing to discuss the possibility of changing some of the safety regulations 
which are over restrictive ... and get rid of any that are really not necessary. As a result, we can get 
more permanent locations in the downtown area. ..." 

Mr. Lazar also referred to an exerpt from the "Regulations for Solicitation for Charitable Purposes" 
(Sec. 660.2) which was furnished by the Clarks and sent (with marginal annotations by the Program 
Director) to the Commissioners. According to the Program Director, these regulations governed 
charitable solicitors who, in most cases, sell items they did not make - unlike the street artists who are 
required to make what they sell. Reviewing the history of the charitable solicitors ordinance, Mr. 
Lazar stated that "the City made special exceptions for this class of vendor" by imposing, in some 
provisions, "less stringent regulations" than those of the street artist ordinance. Significantly, whereas 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901 .html 

a street artist is required to set up not within twelve feet of the outer edge of a doorway or entrance, a 
charitable solicitor is required to set up not within ten feet of the outer edge of a doorway or entrance. 
Similarly, while a street artist is required to maintain a ten-foot pedestrian passageway in front of his 
display, a charitable solicitor need only maintain an eight-foot pedestrian passageway. The purpose of 
the regulations for both the street artists and the charitable solicitors was that of public safety - an 
issue, he said, that was "always touted at the Board of Supervisors. So the rhetorical question is 'How 
can you say that there's more of a safety issue involved with a street artist than with a charitable 
solicitor?' especially when ... the size of the display" required "for both types of vendor is the same 
size. ... There appears to be an inequity here." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, Mr. Lazar stated that in the late 1980s he had served 
on a committee (organized by the City Attorney and comprised of various departmental personnel as 
well as representatives of store merchant organizations and non-profit groups) to draft legislation to 
regulate what had become an epidemic of unlicensed vendors calling themselves charitable solicitors 
and selling commercially manufactured merchandise wherever they chose - primarily, at Fisherman's 
Wharf as well as in front of the major stores in the Downtown area and in front of the Japanese Tea 
Garden in Golden Gate Park. With the passage of the first ordinance draft challenged and struck down 
in court, the passage of a subsequent ordinance was upheld. Inherent in this ordinance were not only 
vending regulations but a provision mandating that charitable solicitors could only sell items that 
verbally or pictorially described the purpose of the charity. Thanks to the advent of this provision 
alone, the enormous volumes of T-shirts imprinted with three sailboats and the words "San Francisco" 
(one example), along with their vendors, disappeared from the streets. According to Mr. Lazar, "what 
you see out there now are just the blatant unlicensed vendors." 

Mr. Lazar went on to say that when the sidewalk regulations for the charitable solicitors were being 
drafted, he protested that the proposed regulations did not seem fair with respect to the street artists: 
"How can you put the street artists through the paces in 1975, have the Police Chief and the Chief of 
the Fire Department in front of the Board of Supervisors saying 'we need these footage requirements, 
these are in accord with police, fire and safety regulations' and then ten or eleven years later mitigate 
some of those very important regulations" for application to the charitable solicitors? 

Mr. Lazar clarified that, should the Commissioners in a subsequent meeting vote to amend some of 
the street artist regulations, such amendments would be in the form of an amending ordinance to go 
not before the voters but before the Board of Supervisors. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth acknowledged that the street artists have designated spaces that 
are, for the most part, clustered; he asked whether the number of charitable solicitors was known and 
whether their sales activities were clustered. 

Mr. Lazar responded that the Police Permit Bureau would have the number. He went on to say that the 
solicitors used to be clustered, but that one of the aims of the ordinance was to attempt to "de-cluster" 
them, and this did happen. A significant point, he said, is that, while street artists are relegated to 
specific sidewalk locations, the charitable solicitors are not and are free to set up wherever they wish 
so long as their chosen location meets their ordinance's regulations. Mr. Lazar stated that he 
understood that this difference was allowed because of a First Amendment issue that had been raised. 
At that time, the drafting committee dealt with the issue of why the "charitables" should even be 
regulated or licensed; the drafted ordinance responded by providing not for a license but for a 
charitable solicitor's registration (with the Police Department). "And, in fact, to my horror," said Mr. 
Lazar, "I found out that there really wasn't a way you could 'revoke' the charitable solicitor" - as he 
had discovered when he made reports to the Police Department regarding a charitable group's blatant 
noncompliance with the regulations. Unlike the Arts Commissioners who can vote to suspend or 



5/23/01 10-0? AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901 .html 

revoke a street artist's certificate for noncompliance, the police are not empowered to abridge a 
charitable solicitor's freedom of speech. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked the Program Director whether he felt the Committee would 
"significantly improve" the Street Artists Program or would only be "tapering very small differences 
between ordinances that lawyers love to do" if the Committee voted to change some of the regulations. 

Mr. Lazar responded that it would depend on the particular regulation which the Committee wished to 
amend. For example, the "doorway" regulation is a very significant regulation because the prohibition 
against a street artist display within twelve feet of a doorway "effectively eliminated a lot of real estate 
in San Francisco for the street artists." Mitigating the regulation to provide for ten feet, as per the 
regulation for charitable solicitors, would significantly open possible selling locations for 
consideration. 

Commissioner Brother Elk commented on the Program Director's statement relative to the inability to 
abridge a charitable solicitor's freedom of expression; the Commissioner stated that "it works both 
ways: certainly a lottery system allows people to express their artistry and freedom of expression ... 
but it seems like the two groups should be treated the same. You can't say that one group should be 
completely unregulated ..." 

Commissioner Stermer noted that the charitable solicitors were regulated - "there's just feet difference 
in how they're regulated" - and noted that what was before the Committee was a discussion on the 
safety regulations. The Commissioner asked the Program Director why it had happened that all the 
footage regulations of the charitable solicitors ordinance had not been equalized with the those of the 
street artist ordinance. 

Mr. Lazar replied that it was his understanding, at the time, that the City Attorney's office felt that the 
Street Artists Program had already taken most of the best real estate for selling locations, and, "to 
satisfy the First Amendment," what was left would be given with considerable leeway to the 
"charitables." 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth noted that, to this day, the performing artists on the streets are 
totally unregulated. 

Commissioners Roth and Stermer stated that they preferred to continue the hearing to the next month 
whereupon it should be calendared as a possible motion to approve amendments. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that there were three proposed amendments to the street artist ordinance 
which he wished the Committee to consider: (1) amend Section 2405(c)(6) to require ten feet, rather 
than twelve feet, from the outer edge of a doorway, in order to try to obtain more selling spaces; (2) 
amend Section 2405(c)(16) to require eight feet, rather than ten feet, for a pedestrian passageway; and 
(3) amend the ordinance to allow street artists, like charitable solicitors, to sell "in any space 
throughout the city that meets all the safety regulations." 

Commissioner Stermer asked the Program Director to list all three proposed amendments for hearing 
and possible motion on the next agenda of the Committee. 

ACTION 
IE. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO SUBMIT ORDINANCE TO BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS AMENDING ARTICLE 24 OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE CODE (ORD. 
451-94) BY DELETING SECTION 2402(C) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901.html 

MEETINGS/STUDIO VISITS OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF STREET 
ARTISTS AND CRAFTSMEN EXAMINERS TO TWENTY-FIVE (25) MEETINGS/STUDIO 
VISITS A YEAR OR COMPENSATION OF $2,000 A YEAR 

(This item was proposed in a January 29, 2001 letter by Street Artist Bill Clark.) 

Program Director Lazar explained that presently each member of the Advisory Committee receives 
$80 per screening or studio visit or session of monitoring of arts and crafts being sold on the streets, 
with a limit of 25 screenings/studio visits/monitoring sessions. By deleting the limitation, the Program 
will be enabled to have the Advisory Committee members on monitoring duty more often. In recent 
times, some of the most important violation cases to come before the Program Committee dealt with 
the sale of items not of the artist's own creation, and these cases had been observed by the Advisory 
Committee on weekend monitoring duty assignments. Whereas the Program Director monitors the 
artists during the weekdays, the Advisory Committee members are in a position to do weekend 
monitoring - traditionally, when most craft violations occur. Furthermore, the annual increase of hour 
rates for the Police has affected the amount of off-duty Police enforcement the Program is able to hire 
for the key selling seasons of summer and winter. While the Advisory Committee members are not 
empowered to handle police issues - for example, unlicensed vendors - they "could help keep our own 
Program clean" by verifying that the street artists sell their own work and sell in legal locations. With 
limited funds, the Program Director could not foresee spending a dramatic increase of money for the 
Advisory Committee services; but the proposed deletion of the limitation of meetings would give the 
Program additional enforcement flexibility. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Richard Newirth stated that the Program Director's time on the streets in 
the afternoons was more than he wanted him to spend. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that the proposed amendment would greatly assist the enforcement 
capability of the Program. 

Commissioner Roth moved that an ordinance be submitted to the Board of Supervisors amending 
Article 24 of the San Francisco Police Code (Ord. 451-94) by deleting Section 2402(c) which limits 
the number of meetings/studio visits of members of the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and 
Craftsmen Examiners to twenty-five (25) meetings/studio visits a year or compensation of $2,000 a 
year; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

DISCUSSION 
IV REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar reported that the amended lottery for Pt. Lobos spaces, recently approved by 
the Commission two days ago, commenced yesterday peacefully and harmoniously, with artists 
informing him that they now felt they had more opportunity to sell at the Cliff House area. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that he had always had to go to the area every day to see if he 
could get a space in which to sell, and now, "for the first time, I didn't have to go out there today." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved to adjourn the meeting; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | May 9, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam050901.html 



*J/$W(vdL 




Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
May 16.2001 






5/23/01 10:02 AM 



Street Artists Program Committee | June 13, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/agenda/2001/st_arts/saa061301.html 



).7_5 




STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, June 13, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUN - 6 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2594. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 



^Agenda 



ACTION 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF ORDINANCE TO 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AMEND SAFETY REGULATIONS GOVERNING STREET 
ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 41-83, SECTION 2405, REGULATIONS FOR STREET 
ARTISTS (continued from 5/9/01 meeting) 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 12/25/00 letter by William Clark and Robert Clark were provided to the 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists 
Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(6) to require a street artist 
display to be not within ten (10) feet, instead of the present twelve (12) feet, of the outer edge of 
a doorway or entrance. 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(16) to require a street artist 
display to maintain eight (8) feet, rather than the present ten (10) feet, of a pedestrian 
passageway. 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending the street artist ordinance (Ord. 41-83) to 
allow street artists, as has been allowed for charitable solicitors, to sell in any space (without 



6/4/01 9:00 AM 



SFAC I Street Artists Program Committee | June 13, 2001 http://sfac.sfsu.edU/meetings/agenda/2001/st_arts/saa06l301.h' 

Board of Supervisors designation) throughout San Francisco which meets with all safety 
regulations of the ordinance. 

DISCUSSION 
II. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
IE. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS 
FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
IV. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
June 1,2001 



of 2 6/4 oi q ooa 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Art Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness. Unless another site is 
specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in 
the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 

Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma in the Community Arts and Education Program at (415) 252-2596 at 
least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist toconduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-5163or by email 
at Donna Hall@ci.sf.ca.US . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance 
can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on the City's website @ WWW.ci.sf.ca.US . 



G 



C 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 13, 2001 



Pagel of 15 





s 


F 


A 


C 


1 


m 





SAN FRANCISCO 
ARTS COMMISSION 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, June 13, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, CA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2581 

^Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrew Brother Elk, Andrea Cochran, Rod 
Freebairn- Smith, Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: None 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk 

In attendance were Kathleen Harrington, President, Golden Gate Restaurant Association; 
Barry Hermanson, Vice President, Merchants of Upper Market and Castro; Christopher 
Martin, President, The Cannery Properties, Inc.; Leigh Ann Matsche, Executive Director, 
Union Square Business Improvement District; Linda Mjellem, Executive Director, Union 
Square Association; Jessica Yang, Associate Property Manager, Cushman and Wakefield. 
Also in attendance were street artists Gaetana Caldwell-Smith, Willie Cheng, Robert Clark, 
William Clark, Fernando Hechavarria, Ann Kelley, Sachiko Matsumoto, Susan Pete, 
Marcia Seeman, Robert Siu, Edward Steneck, Matt Summers. 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. 
DISCUSSION 
I. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301.html 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 2 of 15 



Program Director Lazar reported on the full Arts Commission's recent approval vote 
on the Program Committee's recommendation that non-assigned vacant Leavenworth 
Street spaces (spaces not taken by portrait artists or cartoonists) be occupied by street 
artists of any crafts. Prior to the Commission's action, the City Attorney's office had 
reviewed the recommendation and had advised that such an action would, if 
challenged, be a defensible position for the Commission. 

The Program Director further reported that the Arts Commission and the Symphony's 
"Summer in the City" concert series will be having a free concert at Sharon Meadow 
in Golden Gate Park on July 22nd, and that 20 street artists will be invited to sell their 
arts and crafts at the concert. This will be an increase of 1 street artist displays over 
last year's Sharon Meadow concert. The Street Artists Program staff sent a letter to all 
of the Program's artists inviting interested artists to participate in a lottery for the 20 
spaces to be held at the Program office on July 12th - allowing a week in advance of 
the concert to substitute an alternate winner for any winner choosing to relinquish a 
space. 

ACTION 
2. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 
ORDINANCE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AMEND SAFETY 
REGULATIONS GOVERNING STREET ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 
41-83, SECTION 2405, REGULATIONS FOR STREET ARTISTS) (continued 
from 5/9/01 meeting) 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(6) to require 
a street artist display to be not within ten (10) feet, instead of the present twelve 
(12) feet, of the outer edge of a doorway or entrance. 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(16) to require 
a street artist display to maintain eight (8) feet, rather than the present ten (10) 
feet, of a pedestrian passageway. 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending the street artist ordinance 
(Ord. 41-83) to allow street artists, as has been allowed for charitable solicitors, 
to sell in any space (without Board of Supervisors designation) throughout San 
Francisco which meets with all safety regulations of the ordinance. 

Program Director Lazar reviewed the Committee's previous month's hearing in which 
the Committee had acknowledged an inequity between two existing laws whereby the 
charitable solicitors ordinance, adopted in the early 1990s, provides for charitable 
solicitors certain fire and safety regulations that are less stringent than the fire and 
safety regulations provided by the street artist ordinance, adopted in 1975, for street 
artists. While both the charitable solicitors and the street artists are restricted to the 
same size of display (3 feet x 4 feet), the charitable solicitors are required to be not 
within 10 feet from the outer edge of an entrance, whereas the street artists are 
required to be not within 12 feet of the outer edge of an entrance. Similarly, whereas 
charitable solicitors are required to provide at least 8 feet of pedestrian passageway, 
the street artists are required to provide at least 10 feet of pedestrian passageway. 
Furthermore - and most significantly - street artists are prohibited from selling in any 
public location not designated by the Board of Supervisors, while charitable solicitors 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 3 of 15 



may sell, without Board of Supervisors designation, in any location which meets the 
regulations of their ordinance. Given the perceived inequity of a dual standard of 
regulations aimed at satisfying the same fire and safety issues faced by charitable 
solicitors and street artists, the Committee last month had questioned whether to 
approach the Board of Supervisors with an ordinance putting the street artist 
regulations in conformance with the charitable solicitor regulations. The Committee 
had asked that the matter be calendared for today's meeting with the possibility of 
approving the above listed amendments to the street artist regulations. 

The Committee had also asked the Program Director to alert, by telephone, the 
merchant and building owner groups whom he knew to attend the hearing. The 
Program Director reported that he had personally spoken with representatives of 12 
groups from the areas of Downtown-Union Square, Fisherman's Wharf, and Upper 
Market Street and the Castro. Letters had been received from Market Street 
Association, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), and Union 
Square Association. The two representatives of Market Street Association, Executive 
Director Carolyn Diamond and Associate Directer Lynn Valente, could not be present 
and had asked the Program Director to read their letter into the record; Mr. Lazar did 
so, upon receiving permission from the Chair. 

The Market Street Association letter opposed the proposed amendment to allow street 
artists to sell in any non-designated location that would meet the safety regulations. 
The opposition was on the grounds that the allowance for street artists to sell 
"randomly without advanced notice to merchants and property owners would create 
confusion and ill will. ... Street artists setting up in random spaces, even though 
meeting safety regulations, will cause more confusion and result in property owners, 
the police department and the Program Director of your street artists program 
having to do extra duty in controlling the program. ..." The letter went on to state 
that, while "Market Street Association is a strong supporter of the street artists 
program and its Program Director ...we would be willing to work for more legal 
designated spaces on or around Market Street. However, we cannot support this 
amendment due to the predictabe problems it would bring. " 

Commissioner Stermer opened the hearing to public testimony. 

Street Artist William Clark stated that he wrote Proposition "J" of 1974 and had been 
involved in organizing the Street Artists Program in 1972. He further stated that the 
three proposed amendments, if passed by the Board of Supervisors, would not affect 
any property under the jurisdiction of the Recreation-Park Commission or the Port 
Commission without the approval of such commissions. 

Mr. Clark referred the Commissioners to the October 31, 1986 City Attorney opinion 
he had presented at the last hearing and quoted, for the record, the following excerpt: 
"... Proposition L only authorizes the Board to adopt rules and regulations promoting 
public safety and preventing undue interference with other uses or damage to 
surrounding property. ..." 

Mr. Clark went on to say that "for over twenty-five years we have been unable to get 
any new spaces from Park-Rec, the Port authority; we went to the Museum of 
Modern Art and couldn't get approval of any spaces; we went to the Airport, we 
couldn't get approval of any spaces; and also the Arts Commission in 1988 received a 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 4 of 15 



verbal opinion from the City Attorney" which stated that "the Street Artists Program 
is not allowed to use any of its funds to rent any property that's on private property." 
Mr. Clark said he disagreed with the opinion. Referring to the Program's current 
surplus of $150,000 in excess fees from prior years, he stated that "we're unable to 
use that to rent any building - any public building - or any property" which could be 
used to provide additional selling spaces for the artists. Because of this, he said, "we 
have no alternative" but to make some of the street artist regulations less restrictive in 
order to open more territory for the possibility of additional spaces. 

Acknowledging that many of the attendees of the meeting had participated in the 
drafting of the charitable solicitors ordinance, Mr. Clark asked how it was possible 
for one class of vendor to operate safely on the public sidewalks under certain 
restrictions and another class of vendor to not be allowed to operate under the same 
safety restrictions. Because the Arts Commissioners, he said, did not have the 
expertise to answer the question, he was asking the Committee to submit the question 
without recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, so that it could be discussed 
with the Supervisors, the Police Department, and the Fire Department. 

Mr. Clark conveyed reassurance to the merchants present that, thanks to the Arts 
Commission's new enforcement procedures, a street artist's license can be withheld if 
the artist violates. Mr. Clark added that if there were a problem with an artist 
choosing a location which did not conform to the rules, a store merchant would be 
able to contact the Street Artists Program Director and make a complaint "which 
could be addressed immediately. ... If there is a serious problem of safety, we would 
support de-designating that space as a possible location. ..." 

Ms. Linda Mjellem, Executive Director, Union Square Association, stated that her 
organization represents 200 members and serves the 32-block Union Square area 
from Market Street, on the south, to Bush Street, on the north, and from Kearny 
Street, on the east, to Taylor Street, on the west. The members include retailers, 
hotels, restaurants, the hospitality industry, the service industry, and property owners. 
Her organization, she said, was founded many years ago "on an issue that concerned 
the sidewalks," the newsracks, whereby "the underlying issue behind that is losing 
space on a pedestrian passageway to something that was a stationary object." This is 
an issue that still concerns many people and acutely impacts the Union Square area 
where there are "huge amounts of people" who move from one destination to another. 
The area is also "one of the most expensive locations in the world in which to rent ... 
retail space" which is "the eighth most expensive in the world." Therefore, when Ms. 
Mjellem's members rent or buy space in the Union Square area, they would not want 
their windows blocked by street artists. 

Ms. Mjellem, addressing both the Committee and Mr. Clark, said that she well 
understood the issue of "the double standard" of safety regulations; nevertheless, the 
sidewalks needed to permit the flow of pedestrian traffic. 

Addressing the third request to allow artists "to set up shop anywhere," Ms. Mjellem 
disagreed with the request; if it were approved, she said, her members "would be 
camping on your door, on your sidewalk." 

Ms. Mjellem endorsed the idea of street artists renting a location to provide an open 
venue of their work. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 13, 2001 Page 5 of 15 



Mr. Barry Hermanson, Vice President of Merchants of Upper Market and Castro, 
stated that his association discussed the three proposed amendments at its general 
membership meeting held during the previous week; the measures, he said, would 
impact his area which is bounded by Safeway (Market and Church Streets) to Castro 
Street, Castro Street itself, "and the commercial area within a block or two on either 
side of the major boulevard." It was felt that the measures would not impact the 
merchants on Castro Street "because the sidewalks aren't wide enough, but it will 
impact merchants on Market Street." 

Mr. Hermanson went on to say that he believed there was "a fundamental difference" 
between the street artists and the charitable solicitors, "a Bill of Rights issue here" in 
terms of people raising donations for religious or free speech purposes, and he felt 
that this was "fundamentally different than the ability of a person to sell 
merchandise." 

Mr. Hermanson said that he did not feel it would be appropriate for a street artist to 
show up in front of a store and sell merchandise similar to that of the store without 
the store's permission, "even though the safety issue has been met. That's direct 
competition. I'm paying rent. ..." In keeping with this, he understood that one of the 
requirements of a peddler's license issued by the Police Department prohibits a 
peddler from selling merchandise within 600 feet of a store selling the same type of 
merchandise. "That might be," Mr. Hermanson said, "a change to this law" (the street 
artist ordinance) "that would address some of the concerns here." 

In reference to unlicensed street vendors, Mr. Hermanson stated that he understood 
that an illegal vendor is able to reclaim his merchandise that the Police had 
confiscated. Mr. Hermanson proposed that the City look into permanent confiscation 
of such merchandise for second- or third-time offenders. 

Commissioner Roth replied that she agreed with Mr. Hermanson's view on 
confiscation, but that it was up to the District Attorney, not the Arts Commission, to 
take action in such cases. 

Ms. Leigh Ann Matsche, Executive Director of Union Square Business Improvement 
District, stated that her organization's 10-block area falls within the Union Square 
Association's 32-block area, and that the District provides personnel who sweep the 
sidewalks and "ambassadors" who give directions to tourists and assist the 
shopkeepers in deterring shoplifting. Her organization also does its part to prevent 
tenants from placing chairs and merchandise outside their shops - particularly, on 
Powell Street which has narrow sidewalks. The organization also works with the 
Street Artists Program Director in deterring unlicensed vendors. "Based on the fact 
that Howard" (Program Director Lazar) "is only one person, and if we were to allow" 
the third proposed amendment "to happen, where everybody would just be allowed to 
set up anywhere they pleased ... and there were serious violations, no one would ever 
actually know because ... there are a lot of" merchants who "aren't currently affected 
by the street artist spaces" and would not "know who to call, and I think that that 
vendor would, perhaps, not offer that information out." 

With respect to charitable solicitors versus street artists, Ms. Matsche stated that it 
would be better to change the regulations of the charitable solicitors ordinance to be 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 6 of 15 



comparable with those of the street artist ordinance: applying a 10-foot passageway 
requirement to both types of vendor would address more successfully the "pedestrian 
right-of-way" issue of the Union Square area which "is just always packed." Added to 
the normal congestion are construction projects which often make for single-file 
passageways; "if you have more street artists out there ... it's just going to encumber 
that." 

Ms. Matsche also stated that Marsha Garland, Executive Director of North Beach 
Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter opposing the proposed amendment. 

Ms. Kathleen Harrington of Harrington's Bar and Grill and President of Golden Gate 
Restaurant Association, stated that Golden Gate Restaurant Association had not yet 
taken a position on the proposed amendments, but Ms. Harrington, as a shopkeeper 
"responsible for everything that goes on my sidewalk," stated that she was "very 
opposed to the concept ... of somebody selling stuff in front of my place ..." For many 
of her organization's members, sidewalk dining has been an option of theirs for 
several years, but the permits for sidewalk dining take nine months or more to obtain; 
"the idea of somebody," she said, "being able to set up shop on the sidewalk in front 
of a place - like that! - ticks me off, because I'm the one paying the property tax and 
doing everything else ... The City tells me, on one hand, I am responsible for 
everything that goes on out there, and yet I'm supposed to now be willing to accept 
whatever happens out there ..." Ms. Harrington added: "The way the economy's 
going, I think frankly the City is nuts to be encouraging more street peddlers when 
businesses who are paying rent are going to be having trouble paying their bills." 

Mr. Christopher Martin, President, The Cannery Properties, Inc., stated that he was 
speaking on behalf of the Fisherman's Wharf Merchants Association and that the 
Association's Board of Governors "took a unanimous position yesterday opposing the 
proposed modifications of the street artist ordinance. We believe it's the wrong time 
to go forward with such a proposal." Referring to the "economic crisis" which San 
Francisco was experiencing - rolling blackouts, higher costs of natural gas and 
electricity, increased water and garbage costs - Mr. Martin said that the city's hotels 
were half empty during the peak of the season. "This is a climate that we all have to 
adjust to; and it's difficult sometimes for store merchants to make ends meet. ... 
Whether we like it or not, store merchants and street artists do compete for the same 
reluctant dollar. So it's the wrong time to put this sort of burden on the merchant 
community." 

Mr. Martin went on to say that, even if the economic climate were healthier, "it would 
only be appropriate to make changes to the Street Artists Program if it were working 
according to the original intention of the Street Artists Program." Despite the work of 
the Program Director and despite the commitment of the Commission and the artists, 
he said, "there's a lack of handmade products" and "vans continue to be parked 
adjacent to street artist spaces all day taking up valuable spaces." 

Mr. Martin further stated that for over twenty-five years the merchant community and 
the street artists have had "a live and let live approach ... we've understood each 
other's issues and we've adjusted," but the proposed amendment "would upset that 
balance - it would again pit store merchants against street artists." It would engender 
"debates such as who's responsible for personal injuries on the sidewalk, because the 
Arts Commission and the City and County of San Francisco indemnify building 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam06 1301 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 13, 2001 Page 7 of 15 



owners that are adjacent to street artist spots." 

Mr. Martin added that if there were to be an expansion of the Program, the Arts 
Commission would have to investigate transportation and parking mitigation, the 
liability issue, and the conomic impact on the community. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Martin stated that his 
remarks applied to all three proposed amendments. He went on to explain that he was 
involved with the City's efforts in drafting the charitable solicitors ordinance, and that 
it was his perception that because there existed a Street Artists Program and "a 
hundred uses on the sidewalk other than pedestrian use - because the sidewalks, after 
all, are owned by the buildings and by the City Charter the property owner turns them 
over to the City for dedicated pedestrian use, and since we do choose to have the 
Street Artists Program on the street, nonprofit solicitors are entitled to access on the 
sidewalks"; accordingly, the City Attorney drafted the charitable solicitor regulations 
to facilitate access to the available sidewalk space. 

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that there were many City Attorney opinions which 
have clarified that merchants are not liable for any accident occurring outside their 
businesses. He went on to say that the main question for today's hearing was "the 
safety issue ... Why did the Police Department and the Fire Department, who are the 
experts in safety, decide that eight feet was okay and ten feet was okay for 
these" (charitable) "solicitors?" He urged the Commissioners to pass the inequity 
issue on to the Board of Supervisors. 

Mr. Clark went on to say that at the present time store merchants are able to acquire a 
permit from the City which "allows them to put their merchandise outside their 
doorways, up to their doorways ... If they're arguing that this is a safety problem for 
us" to be reduced in distance from twelve feet to ten feet, "then they should also be 
there agreeing with us that they shouldn't be allowed to have permits that allow them 
to put their merchandise right up to their doorways ... because obviously it's a safety 
problem." 

Mr. Clark wanted "to remind everybody" that the street artists "got permission, when 
Proposition 'L' in 1975 passed," from "1 10,000 voters of San Francisco" who "said 
that the streets of San Francisco are not only for pedestrian traffic but can be used by 
specific individuals who make their own artwork and go to the Art Commission to 
acquire a certificate.... /represent 110,000 voters ..." 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that, in response to some of the comments by the 
merchants, he himself pays taxes: property taxes, State Board of Equalization sales 
taxes, "$150" business tax registration fees to the City Tax Collector "if you do over 
$15,000 gross a year - 1 do that - obviously I couldn't live in the city if I didn't make 
at least $15,000 ..." In response to Mr. Martin's comment about his increased gas and 
electric bill, Mr. Steneck stated that the most expensive PG&E bill he himself ever 
paid, until the current year, was $74, and this was surpassed by his recent bills of 
$154, $173, and $147; "so mine have gone up, too." He added that his own business, 
like those of the store merchants, was down: "I'm doing a lot less this year than I did 
last year, and I believe that most of the other street artists are suffering - the same way 
that the merchants are suffering." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 8 of 15 

Mr. Steneck went on to say that "the so-called non-profit people being allowed access 
to spaces" that the artists cannot have was "blatantly discriminatory." 

Ms. Jessica Yang, Associate Property Manager of 55 Stockton Street (Cushman and 
Wakefield property), stated that she has two tenants, Crate-n-Barrel and Fossil, who 
are on streets that have "a lot of traffic as it is already." The building also houses a 
fashion school whose students, when class is over, "pour out of the building." While a 
two-foot reduction of the pedestrian passageway "isn't much distance," she said, it 
would be a adversely affect the flow of pedestrian traffic. 

Street Artist Gaetana Caldwell-Smith asked for the reason why street artists could not 
rent buildings and the reason why street performers were not licensed - especially 
those at Stockton and Post Streets who "take up an awful lot of room; no one controls 
them" and they create large crowds who block the pedestrian thoroughfare. Ms. 
Caldwell-Smith further stated that street artists are not in competition "mercantile- 
wise ... we don't sell liquor or food." 

Commissioner Stermer responded that the Arts Commission has no jurisdiction over 
the street performers. 

Ascertaining that no further testimony would be submitted, Commissioner Stermer 
stated that the Committee would consider each of the three proposed amendments, 
starting with the first. 

Commissioner Cochran asked the Program Director for his viewpoint on the 
possibility of "a free-for-all" of increased numbers of artists in an area, regulating an 
increased selling area for the street artists, and whether he felt it would exascerbate 
the ability to control the Program. 

Mr. Lazar responded that he felt that the letter from Market Street Association raised 
"a good point ... about the possibility of fomenting animosity in the merchants-street 
artist community when a street artist shows up in front of a store, and the store owner 
is totally unprepared, doesn't know whether or not that street artist is complying with 
all the ... regulations, and just feels generally belligerant about the" situation, The 
merchant, he said, "will eventually call me ... How that would affect our operation is 
that I would probably have to ... stop what I'm doing, go out there, and check it out 
myself ... just to assure the store owner whether or not the artist is meeting the 
regulations." With regard to the possibility of increased numbers of artists in an area, 
Mr. Lazar stated that he did not foresee "a free-for-all of large numbers of artists 
showing up," although it was conceivable that unofficial "mini-lotteries" would have 
to be held in the advent of several artists showing up for a new non-designated space, 
as such lotteries are held now for designated spaces, and this "could also be very 
orderly ... a recognition that there's a lot at stake here; we do not want to offend the 
merchant community ..." 

Commissioner Cochran asked how enforcement would work in verifying street artists 
from unlicensed vendors in new areas that had not previously been street artist areas. 

The Program Director responded that enforcement, either in the form of the Program 
Director or the Police going to the site to verify the vendor's status, would, basically, 
be engendered by a telephone call. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 9 of 15 



Commissioner Cochran stated that her concern dealt with how the proposed 
amendment would impact the overseeing of the Program in addition to the merchants' 
concerns. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that he wanted to see that two licensing programs 
have the same standards. 

Commissioner Stermer asked the Program Director whether an increase in the 
number of available selling spaces would attract an increased number of street artists; 
would there be, for example, "another hundred artists on the street" as the shop 
owners, he felt, might fear? 

The Program Director replied that he did not foresee such an occurrence, and that the 
Program's statistics showed that the population of the Program has declined - from 
800 to 1,000 twenty years ago to currently 365 - and has maintained a level below 
400 for the past several years. Even if a significant number of spaces became 
available, he did not foresee this "as being a carrot waved to the public" to apply for 
licenses. 

Responding to a statement by Commissioner Brother Elk that, perhaps, there was not 
a need for additional spaces, Program Director Lazar stated that the need existed for 
more viable selling spaces in view of the fact that at least a third of the current 
designated spaces have proven over the years to be unworkable due to a lack of 
pedestrian traffic flow and other reasons. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Cochran on the history of the designation 
of the present spaces and their selection by the artists, the Program Director gave a 
brief outline of the controversies and the difficulties surrounding the enactment of the 
first street artist ordinance and the founding of the Program in 1972 and the submittal 
of lists of proven lucrative selling locations by the artists themselves to the Board of 
Supervisors, the locations being primarily in the Fisherman's Wharf and the Union 
Square-Downtown areas. Long before the Arts Commission elected to hold 
"community meetings like this one with merchants and street artists to try to come to 
an agreement to submit spaces to the Board of Supervisors, ... it was the street 
artists ... themselves ... and their attorneys" who would approach the Supervisors 
directly with requests for spaces. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Brother Elk on whether it has been 
difficult for the Arts Commission and the street artists to acquire additional spaces, 
the Program Director stated that he has been "very gratified by the spaces" that were 
achieved - notably, spaces in North Beach, against the opposition of merchant and 
homeowner associations; and the achievement of an additional 60-plus winter holiday 
spaces in the Union Square-Downtown area every year for the past twenty years - 
"with the cooperation of the merchants and the building owners associations ... and 
street artists proposing spaces." Mr. Lazar emphasized that the artists seldom obtain 
all that they want, "but I'm very grateful," he said, "that you Commissioners have 
always held a public forum as an area in which" the artists, the merchants, and the 
Program staff "can barter" and "come to some kind of an agreement." As a result, he 
said, he, as a representative of the Arts Commission, has not "had to go to the Board 
of Supervisors with a fight" over proposed spaces "in at least twenty years. ... That's 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam06 1 301 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 13, 2001 Page 10 of 15 



thanks to all of us putting in the effort to communicate." 

Mr. Lazar went on to say that, technically, the Arts Commissioners were not obliged 
to hold community meetings about spaces proposed by the street artists; the artists 
could submit their proposals themselves directly to the Board of Supervisors (as they 
had years before). However, by holding such community meetings, the Commission 
was "trying to facilitate the whole public process ... and that in itself has worked very, 
very well through the years." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that he was opposed to the third proposed 
amendment. 

Commissioner Roth stated that she, too, opposed the amendment. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that the amendment had "opened up a huge can of 
worms" and that it was "too wide open - it's fraught with difficulty ... for the 
merchants ... for the management of the Program" and "for the artists themselves. I 
think there would be strife even within the ranks of the artists ..." Asserting his 
advocacy for the street artists, he nevertheless could not see himself as a shopkeeper 
opening his door and having to move someone aside who was selling wares. Perhaps 
such a situation would not arise, but he did not want "to face the possibility that it 
could happen." He therefore was opposed to the proposed amendment. The 
Commissioner called for a vote on the amendment. 

Commissioner Roth moved to approve amending the street artist ordinance (Ord. 41- 
83) to allow street artists, as has been allowed for charitable solicitors, to sell in any 
space (without Board of Supervisors designation) throughout San Francisco which 
meets with all safety regulations of the ordinance; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously disapproved. 

Commissioner Stermer commented that "freedom of speech is not adjusted whether 
one is nonprofit or profit; freedom of expression is not adjusted; there's nothing in the 
Constitution that says there's a double standard between those promoting religion and 
those promoting wares in terms of their freedom to operate. One pays taxes and one 
may not, but in all other areas they're pretty much similar about freedom of speech." 

The Commissioner went on to say that if he were a street artist, he would be in favor 
of the two remaining proposed amendments and would want to see them considered 
by the Board of Supervisors. The Board could equalize the requirements of both the 
charitable solicitors and the street artists. 

Program Director Lazar stated that he perceived two possible courses of action for the 
Commission: one would be to submit the matter to the Board as a question of 
rectifying the inequity between certain regulations of the street artist and charitable 
solicitors ordinances, whereby the Board would hold a hearing to compare the two 
ordinances and receive input from the City Attorney and other agencies; the other 
direction would be to request the City Attorney to draft an amending ordinance that 
would put the distance-footage regulations of the street artist ordinance on the same 
level as those of the charitable solicitors ordinance. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth recommended the first course of action for two 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 1 1 of 15 



reasons: if the Commission were to submit an amending street artist ordinance, the 
Supervisors could possibly alter the regulations of the charitable solicitors ordinance 
to be commensurate with those of the existing street artist ordinance; and, unless the 
Commissioners were certain that they supported the two proposed amendments, it 
would be difficult to introduce legislation without a recommendation. Mr. Newirth 
favored having the Commission submit the matter with a recommendation to request 
the Board to hold a hearing; in this way, the Board could choose to either examine the 
street artists ordinance or the charitable solicitors ordinance, and "everyone would 

have their ability to express themselves in that forum When that is calendared," the 

Supervisors "will expect the Commissioners to be present to support that." 

In response to a question on procedure by Commissioner Roth, Mr. Newirth stated 
that the Board frequently holds hearings and multiple hearings to essentially develop 
a policy that is drafted into legislative form; in some ways, it is "a public forum and 
brainstorming session that leads towards an eventual solution to the issue that they're 
confronting." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Brother Elk, Mr. Newirth stated that the 
Supervisors probably would want to know the Commissioners' recommendations. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that he considered the first two proposed 
amendments and wanted "to see a balance across all City ordinances"; he would 
support a method to seek this. 

Commissioner Roth asked how many of the merchant and building owner 
representatives present, who seemed strongly opposed to passing the amendments, 
were actively attempting to change the charitable solicitors ordinance. 

In response, Ms. Mjellem of Union Square Association stated that she agreed that 
there should be one standard for both the charitable solicitors and the street artists, 
and that her inclination would be to see "a more generous standard" of sidewalk space 
for pedestrians. She added that her organization would probably support regulations 
for the charitable solicitors to match those for the street artists. 

Commissioner Roth asked Ms. Mjellem how many letters she had written to the 
Board of Supervisors since 1990 to ask for a mitigation of the current charitable 
solicitors ordinance. 

Ms. Mjellem responded that, as her organization's director for the past five years, she 
has written none. Furthermore, she has not seen many charitable solicitors in her area; 
if there were many, for example, as the same number as that for street artists, her 
organization would write. 

Ms. Matsche of Union Square Business Improvement District responded that her 
organization would be in favor of changing the charitable solicitors regulations to 
match those of the street artists; but her group has only been in existence for two 
years and "didn't know that there was a disparity" between the two classes of vendors. 
Nevertheless, she agreed that there should be one standard for both. 

Commissioner Roth commented that, when the charitable solicitors ordinance was 
being drafted, it appeared that the authorities "chose to revisit the fire and safety issue 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam06 1 301 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 12 of 15 



and determine that" the charitable solicitors "didn't need quite as large" distance 
requirements as those which had been enacted, fifteen years before, for street artists. 

Ms. Matsche stated that if it were now determined by the authorities that eight feet, 
rather than ten feet, is sufficient for both charitable solicitors and street artists, then so 
be it; however, she observed that "in Union Square ... the number of people on the 
sidewalk is such that you're always walking in single-file." She also commented on 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that there could be complications arising in 
an eight-foot passageway with two wheelchair persons passing one another adjacent 
to a street artist or a flower stand. 

Commissioner Roth asked Program Director Lazar how many additional spaces he 
could foresee occuring in the Union Square area if the Board of Supervisors approved 
the proposed amendments. 

Mr. Lazar responded that he did not foresee "a wholesale lot of spaces" due to the fact 
that there is an abundance of doorways, street furniture, and kiosks, which prohibit 
the proximity of street artist spaces. Should the amendments be adopted, he estimated 
that they would yield ten or twelve in areas that the artists would want in Union 
Square - that is, the major business thoroughfares. For example, the artists would 
probably not want spaces on Ellis Street but would want spaces on Stockton Street 
between Geary and Post Streets. With the mitigation of the distance-from-doorway 
regulation, perhaps two or three spaces could be created on the block. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that he was in favor of "a broader standard" due to 
disability and accessibility issues; he acknowledged the existence of "a huge sidewalk 
problem in the Union Square area" and stated that he wished the City had a "more 
enlightened City policy ... a broader approach to this issue of ... where" it "would be 
really attractive to have artists selling their wares and really presenting the best that 
San Francisco has to offer in arts and crafts." He cited Paris as having parks and other 
open areas as scenic sites for its outdoor artists. 

Commissioner Cochran stated that she agreed with Commissioner Brother Elk and 
that she had observed that the Union Square area "is awfully tight when you're 
walking." She further stated that she did not see much of a gain in spaces in that area 
should the amendments be adopted. 

Commissioner Stermer observed that, on one hand, the merchants did not want to see 
the street artists get closer to their doorways; but, on the other hand, they appeared to 
be ready to support equalizing the regulations for the artists and the charitable 
solicitors, even though they do not see many charitable solicitors in their area. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked the street artists present whether, after hearing 
the Program Director's estimation of possible additional spaces in the Union Square 
area, they felt there would be "some extraordinary gains for the Program." 

Mr. William Clark responded that "the gain is not in Union Square; the gain is in 
areas where the sidewalk is not fourteen and a half feet wide; we're not looking at 
Union Square, saying ... we want more of Union Square - or of Fisherman's Wharf . 
We're looking at all sidewalks that are less than fourteen and a half feet wide, as well 
as locations throughout ... the shopping areas" in the city where "we could pick up 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 13 of 15 



forty, fifty, sixty, seventy spaces, and then we'd spread out as a result of that, instead 
of everybody ... being ghettoized into Fisherman's Wharf or Union Square." This 
would, he said, "alleviate" the street artist numbers in those two areas. 

Commissioner Freebairn- Smith stated that "a lot of these ordinances in the city exist 
only for moments of controversy; they are, in fact, very poorly enforced, very 
unevenly enforced." Referring to his morning walk on Stockton Street to work, the 
Commissioner stated that he had to walk in the street itself "because the sidewalks are 
for a different pace of pedestrian who's not going to work but who's shopping"; the 
sidewalks "are so jammed ... and it's wonderful to me - the intensity of that - 1 love 
that characteristic of the city." He added that "there's no cop running up to the 
merchants on Stockton and saying 'your dried sea horses are within two feet of this 
path of egress, and the ADA people aren't going to like it, too.' There's no 
enforcement whatsoever." He further referred to the tables that are "well within ten 
feet of the door at Calzone's" and that "actually serve the restaurant well," and he did 
not see citizens urging the Police to cite the restaurant owner for having tables too 
near the restaurant's door. Summing up, the Commissioner stated: "My gut feel for a 
lot of this" was that a relevant ordinance existed "in case there's trouble" and "we 
need something to hang our hats on when there's controversy"; unless the street artists 
could see "an enormous gain for the Program" with the adoption of the two proposed 
amendments, his instinct was to not amend the ordinance. 

Commissioner Stermer suggested that the issue be continued to another meeting to 
allow for consideration of whether there exist many areas that are well-trafficked and 
would support a number of street artists, and, conversely, whether there "is enough 
street artists to populate those new places; then it might be worth re-writing this" 
ordinance "so that you could make use of those narrower sidewalks to a degree ..." 

Commissioner Roth concurred that there was a possibility of additional areas and 
added that she was "disturbed that there is such a groundswell of force against 
changing" the street artist ordinance" by "two feet ... to be in sync with ordinances 
that already exist ... to create an equality across the board ..." Interepreting the 
statements from the merchant representatives that they "didn't even know that those 
ordinances existed," the Commissioner stated that it tended to tell her that "that two 
feet really doesn't bother you that much, that you didn't call the Police and complain 
when that person was two feet closer than they should have been to the door ..." and 
that this "tells me that you're probably not going to complain when the street artists 
are two feet closer if we change the ordinance." The Commissioner added that she 
was "bothered by the fact that the existing" charitable solicitors ordinance was "not a 
problem" for the merchants. "Yet if we were to change" the street artist ordinance to 
have the same location requirements as those of the charitable solicitors ordinance, 
"then that somehow would be a problem." 

Ms. Matsche responded that the charitable organizations to which she had been 
referring "are people ... selling Bibles, people ... actually preaching ... and I would say 
we get fifteen a year down there ... and then the bell ringers ... at the front door of 
Macy's collecting money. If there were the number of charitable organizations 
appearing every day that there are street artists, you better believe we would be in 
there" seeking changes to the regulations governing charitable solicitors. 

Commissioner Roth asked Ms. Matsche if she was "bothered" by the "people selling 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam06 1 301 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 14 of 15 



T-shirts that have pictures of Christ on them or what-have-you ... and the guy who ... 
has a charitable solicitors license to sell his music on the street." 

Ms. Matsche responded that she has never seen the two to whom the Commissioner 
was referring. The majority of problems engendered by charitable solicitors, most of 
whom she had seen at the cablecar turnaround on Powell Street, were noise problems. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that consideration of the two proposed amendments 
would be continued. He asked artists who favored William Clark's vision of new 
selling areas throughout the city by a reduction of the footage requirements to "do a 
little homework and let us know specifically your recommendations." 

Commissioner Brother Elk concurred by saying that finding new creative spaces for 
the artists required assistance from the street artist community, and this would 
constitute a brilliant "brainstorming" hearing. 

Commissioner Stermer asked the Program Director if he felt that an additional fifty- 
plus spaces throughout the city would be used by the artists ... "Do we have enough 
street artists who would want to go out every day to them?" 

Program Director Lazar responded that the Street Artists Program, in essence, is like 
San Francisco, "a collection of little communities within the community"; as such, 
through the years, he has occasionally received questions from various artists as to 
whether the Program intended to obtain permanent spaces in their own neighborhoods 
or other neighborhoods (other than Downtown and the Wharf). To these questions, he 
has urged the artists to make the effort to contact the merchants in those communities 
so that negotiations between merchants, artists, and Program staff could commence. If 
the artists became aware of the existence of spaces created in outlying areas due to 
amendments in the footage regulations, "I think you'll get clusters of street artists 
going there." He did not predict a large number of artists going to any particular area. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he did not want his Committee to go through 
hearings of arguments pro and con, voting on proposed ordinance changes, and 
making strong recommendations before the Board of Supervisors, "without a strong 
groundswell of support that is going to be used ...and will benefit the members of the 
Program" He did not want to see effort made in securing, for example, forty new 
spaces and then find that only one artist would be using spaces in the Castro or only 
one artist using spaces on Clement Street." 

Program Director Lazar stated that while the Program could not enforce or guarantee 
occupancy of any of its spaces, he himself would do his part in informing the artists 
personally and at the lotteries of the existence of new spaces. He added that several 
years ago the Program Committee and the Arts Commission actually voted to 
encourage artists to seek spaces in outlying neighborhoods of the city in order to de- 
centralize the traditional selling areas. 

Street Artist Ann Kelley congratulated the Commissioners on their hearing of these 
issues; she was particularly impressed with the remarks made by Commissioner 
Brother Elk about the Parisian sites for artists which add flavor to the city and 
Commissioner Freebairn-Smith's comments about the "intense traffic in the city 
which is really one of the reasons why I became a street artist." She further stated that 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam06 1301 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | Junel3, 2001 Page 15 of 15 



the present street artist locations "were the outgrowths of street artists having already 
won out ... and then ... separating on the street with no control ... If you could totally 
re-do where the street artists were in the city ... if you could help us ... it would be 
really nice." She went on to say that she did not want to sell in the Haight-Ashbury 
and that she would not sell on Clement Street, where she lives, even if twenty spaces 
were obtained there; and she did not want to compete with The Cannery. "My stuff," 
she said, "is real art; I don't want it to be just kind of trashily, you know, in front of 
that lady's restaurant ... I want it to be beautiful. And I think you guys do, too ..." 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth suggested that, since the summer season was 
commencing, the Program Director would be doing increased monitoring on the 
streets, and the street artists themselves would want to spend as much time as possible 
selling and might not have time to investigate new locations, the Commissioners 
might wish to allow more time for such research. 

Program Director Lazar stated that, aside from the present matter, he did not have 
additional items for next month's agenda. 

Commissioner Stermer stated the consideration of the two proposed amendments 
would be continued to the Committee's next meeting, the month of which would be 
subject to the amount of specific site requests and/or additional agenda items received 
by the Program Director to warrant the holding of a meeting. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 

[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
June 27, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam061301 .html 1 1/26/2003 



S F 



A C 



SAN FRANCISCO ARTS 



COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
i of Cultural Affairs 



15 



>l 



iiJ 



PROGRAMS 

jvic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

ural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

vie Art Collection 

eet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 

)1 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



HTTI>://SFAC. SFSU.EDU 
AC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



NOTICE 



The meeting of the^STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday, July 11, 2001 has been cancelled. 

*/ 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, August 8, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 
July 3, 2001 




ity and County of 
San Francisco 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUL 1 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

07-10-01 A1 1 :04 Rl 



Van Ness Avenue, Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone (415) 252-2590 Fax (415) 252-2595 



^J 



■■ 



vreet Artists Program Committee | August 8, 2001 



file:///S|AVebStaging/sfac.sfsu.edu/mee...l/st_arts/sfac street_artists_prog.htm 



s f SANFRANCISO 
ac ARTS COMMISSI 



..p. ~...^ <*.,-.» ■ ,.-,-. ■ ~~ —• 



mmmmm^wmm. 



m 



i 



"<-„. s- J/e-J sy^+U-e" 



See ca-ice' 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS DEPT 
Wednesday, August 8, 2001 ^g _ ^ ^ 

3:00 p.m. SAN FRANCISCO 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



PUBLIC LIBRARY 



08 ~^~Q1AQ9: V7 
Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission's Street 
Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Suite 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business 
hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 



RCVD 



Agenda 



ACTION 



I HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 
ORDINANCE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AMEND SAFETY 
REGULATIONS GOVERNING STREET ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 41-83, 
SECTION 2405, REGULATIONS FOR STREET ARTISTS) (continued from 6/13/01 
meeting) 

Hearing and possible motion to approve Section 2405(c)(6) to require a street artist 
display to be not within ten (10) feet, instead of the present twelve (12) feet, of the outer 
edge of a doorway or entrance. 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(16) to require a 
street artist display to maintain eight (8) feet, rather than the present ten (10) feet, of a 
pedestrian passageway. 



ACTION 
II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL BY PROGRAM 
DIRECTOR FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATION OF TEMPORARY 



8/T/m O-T-2 A 1V/I 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 8, 2001 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac.sfsu.edu/mee...l/st_arts/sfac street_artists_prog.l 

WINTER HOLIDAY SELLING SPACES FOR STREET ARTISTS IN THE 
DOWNTOWN AREA AND AT HARVEY MILK PLAZA; DESIGNATION FOR 
NOVEMBER 15, 2001 - JANUARY 15, 2002 

The Program Director proposes the following: 

- The same 56 temporary selling spaces in the Downtown area as had been designated for 
the previous 2 winter holiday seasons (including the same 52 spaces as had been designated 
for the previous 8 winter holiday seasons); 

- One (1) new temporary space to be designated on Stockton Street, east side, O'Farrell to 
Geary Streets (opposite open cafe area of Macy's Men's Store); 

- One (1) new temporary space to be designated on Post Street, south side, Grant Avenue 

to Kearny Street (adjacent to Gump's and next to winter holiday space "Z-38"); 

- Six (6) new temporary spaces to be designated on Sansome Street, west side, at Bush 
Street; 

- The same 7 temporary selling spaces at Harvey Milk Plaza as had been designated for the 
previous 6 winter holiday seasons and the winter holiday season of 1992-93; 

- The same period of time for the designation of all temporary spaces (November 
15- January 15) as had been designated for the previous 1 1 years. 

DISCUSSION 
m. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
V. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
August 1,2001 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to 
the needs of persons with disabilities. 

Full Commission meetings and individual Committee meetings of the Arts Commission will 
be held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Van Ness Avenue 
and Oak Street. Unless another site is specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement 
level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including persons in wheelchairs, will be 
available. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings at 25 Van Ness Avenue: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI lines serving the 25 Van Ness Avenue building 
are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, there are 
the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses, the F Line streetcars, 
and the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro station, at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Streets, one half block from the building. Also, serving the Van Ness/Market vicinity 
are the #9 SanBruno and #26 Valencia buses. 

There is accessible curbside parking on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings in City Hall: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving City 
Hall are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, 
there are the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses and the F 
Line streetcars stopping between Van Ness/Market Streets and Hyde/Market Streets, and 
the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro stations at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Street and at Civic Center. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to 
Davies Hall and the War Memorial complex. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, 
environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at 
public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical 
based products. Please help the city to accommodate these individuals. 



American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available 
upon request at meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma of the Community Arts and Education 
Program at (415) 252-2596 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored 
if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the 
people and that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of 
the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1 Dr. 
Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102; by telephone at (415) 554- 
7724; by fax at (415) 554-5163; or by e-mail at Donna_Hall @ ci.sf.ca.us. Citizens interested 
in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on 
the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us. 



J 

c 



?H G "^: 2001 10:31 FROM S F ART COMMISSION TO q™ 4 ,™- 




^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 

Wednesday, August 8, 2001 

-5, 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



Notices 

^ M i u* curing regular business hours. Tel- 41 5-252-2581 
Pub„c comment in regard to specific items „ be ta.en before or du nng consioeration of ^ , em ' 

^^^tZ^^^^^^^^ r Reducing e.ectronic dev,ces are 

o any person(s) responsible ^ifi^ ^.'X ^ ° rder the removal f ™ the meeting room 

electronic devices. nS ' n9 ° r use of a ce " P n ° n ^ pager, or other similar sound producing 

^Agenda 

MEETING CANCELLED 



August 7. 2001 



08-07-01P12:41 RCVD 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

AUG - 7 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



8/7/01 11:30 AM 
TOTAL P. 01 



c 



c 






c 



Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 



file:///S|AVeb Staging/sfac.sfsu.edu/mee...l/st_arts/sfac street_artists_prog.htm 



T71 SAN FRANCISCO 
ac ARTS COMMISSION 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
SEP - 7 2001 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission Street 
Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Suite 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business 
hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 



Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 



Agenda 



ACTION 



I. 



II. 



HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 
ORDINANCE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AMEND SAFETY 
REGULATIONS GOVERNING STREET ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 41-83, 
SECTION 2405, REGULATIONS FOR STREET ARTISTS) (continued from 6/13/01 
meeting) 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(6) to require a 
street artist display to be not within ten (10) feet - instead of the present twelve (12) 
feet - of the outer edge of a doorway or entrance. 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(16) to require a 
street artist display to maintain eight (8) feet - instead of the present ten (10) feet - of a 
pedestrian passageway. 

ACTION 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL BY PROGRAM 

DIRECTOR FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATION OF TEMPORARY 



9/4/01 1:35 PIV 



c 



Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac.sfsu.edu/mee...l/st_arts/sfac street_artists_prog.htm 

WINTER HOLIDAY SELLING SPACES FOR STREET ARTISTS IN THE 
DOWNTOWN AREA AND AT HARVEY MILK PLAZA; DESIGNATION FOR 
NOVEMBER 15, 2001 - JANUARY 15, 2002 

The Program Director proposes the following: 

The same 56 temporary spaces in the Downtown area as had been designated for the 
previous 2 winter holiday seasons (including the same 52 spaces as had been designated for 
the previous 8 winter holiday seasons); 

One (1) new temporary space to be designated on Stockton Street, east side, O'Farrell to 

Geary Streets (opposite the open cafe area of Macy's Men's Store); 

One (1) new temporary space to be designated on Post Street, south side, Grant Avenue 

to Kearny Street (adjacent to Gump's and next to winter holiday space "Z-38"); 

Six (6) new temporary spaces to be designated on Sansome Street, west side, at Bush 
Street; 

The same 7 temporary spaces at Harvey Milk Plaza as had been designated for the 
previous 6 winter holiday seasons and the winter holiday season of 1992-93; 

The same period of time for the designation of all temporary spaces (November 15 - 
January 15) as had been designated for the previous 1 1 years. 

ACTION 
IE. HEARING ON APPEAL OF RECOMMENDATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
OF STREET ARTISTS AND CRAFTSMEN EXAMINERS TO DISAPPROVE ITEM; 
POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 

Julio Bonilla (Certificate # 5002) and Lily Gonzalez (Certificate # 5148): appeal of 
August 30, 2001 recommendation of Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen 
Examiners that Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Gonzalez not be certified to sell submitted 
machine-embroidered clothing. 

DISCUSSION 
IV. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
V. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
VI. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
September 4, 2001 



9/4/01 1:35 PM 



c 



4 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to 
the needs of persons with disabilities. 

Full Commission meetings and individual Committee meetings of the Arts Commission will 
be held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Van Ness Avenue 
and Oak Street. Unless another site is specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement 
level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including persons in wheelchairs, will be 
available. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings at 25 Van Ness Avenue: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI lines serving the 25 Van Ness Avenue building 
are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, there are 
the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses, the F Line streetcars, 
and the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro station, at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Streets, one half block from the building. Also, serving the Van Ness/Market vicinity 
are the #9 San Bruno and #26 Valencia buses. 

There is accessible curbside parking on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings in City Hall: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving City 
Hall are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, 
there are the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses and the F 
Line streetcars stopping between Van Ness/Market Streets and Hyde/Market Streets, and 
the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro stations at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Street and at Civic Center. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to 
Davies Hall and the War Memorial complex. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, 
environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at 
public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical 
based products. Please help the city to accommodate these individuals. 



( 



c 



I 



American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available 
upon request at meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma of the Community Arts and Education 
Program at (415) 252-2596 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored 
if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the 
people and that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of 
the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1 Dr. 
Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102; by telephone at (415) 554- 
7724; by fax at (415) 554-5163; or by e-mail at Donna_Hall @ ci.sf.ca.us. Citizens interested 
in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on 
the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us. 



( 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 



Page 1 of 1 1 




^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Suite 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular 
business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

^Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Kirk Anderson, Rod Freebairn- Smith 

Commissioners Absent: Andrew Brother Elk, Denise Roth 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director 



In attendance were street artists Julio Bonilla, Bill Clark, Bob Clark, Lily Gonzalez, Edward 
Steneck, Barbara Zerbe 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. 

ACTION 

I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF 
ORDINANCE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AMEND SAFETY 
REGULATIONS GOVERNING STREET ARTIST SELLING SPACES (ORD. 
41-83, SECTION 2405, REGULATIONS FOR STREET ARTISTS) (continued 
from 6/13/01 meeting) 



http ://sfac. sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam09 1201 .html 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 2 of 1 1 



Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(6) to require 
a street artist display to be not within ten (10) feet - instead of twelve (12) feet - 
of the outer edge of a doorway or entrance. 

Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Section 2405(c)(16) to require 
a street artist display to maintain eight (8) feet - instead often (10) feet - of a 
pedestrian passageway. 

At the request of Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar summarized the 
Committee's discussion on these issues at the June 13th meeting and the Committee's 
acknowledgment of an existing inequity of public safety regulations for street artists 
and for charitable solicitors. 

The Program Director referred the Commissioners to a subsequent receipt of a July 
23rd letter and opinion poll submitted by Street Artists Bill and Bob Clark. The artists 
who signed the opinion poll indicated support of a proposal to amend the 
passageway-width regulation by reducing the required 10-foot passageway to 8 feet, 
the same requirement for charitable solicitors, thereby allowing for the possibility to 
obtain street artist spaces on sidewalks 12 1/2 feet wide rather than being restricted to 
14 1/2 foot- wide sidewalks. 

Street Artist Bill Clark clarified that what the artists were proposing did not mean that 
the required 8-foot passageway would apply for spaces on all sidewalks; rather, that 
the requirement would be for spaces only on sidewalks 12 1/2 feet to 14 1/2 feet 
wide. On sidewalks 14 1/2 feet and wider, the present minimum of a 10-foot 
passageway would continue to be required. 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that the purpose of the opinion poll was to respond to 
Commissioner Stermer's earlier question of whether street artists would be willing to 
use spaces achieved as a result of mitigating the pedestrian-passageway regulation 
and the street artist distance-from-doorway regulation. 

Commissioner Anderson commented that, with the observed inequity between the 
street artist safety regulations and the charitable solicitor safety regulations, he did not 
feel that the regulations for the artists should be more stringent than those for the 
charitable solicitors. 

Program Director Lazar stated that passage of the proposed amendments would not 
alter his conservative methods of seeking and proposing spaces, that the Program's 
reputation for proposing small numbers of spaces in areas and actively seeking to 
negotiate with affected merchants and business affiliates would continue. 

Commissioner Stermer recommended that, prior to a hearing on such amendments at 
the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Lazar assure the merchants that the intention of the 
amended regulations would not be to squeeze more street artist spaces onto existing 
street artist sidewalks, and that such amendments would not apply to sidewalks less 
than 12 1/2 feet wide. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth asked whether the Commissioners and staff were 
prepared to respond to any question the Supervisors might ask as to what areas the 
artists were considering for spaces. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 3 of 1 1 



Commissioner Stermer asked the artists present whether the Arts Commission's 
approval of amended regulations would be enough of an incentive to research new 
areas. 

Street Artist Bill Clark responded in the affirmative but clarified that he did not want 
to be the only artist charged with the responsibility of looking for new spaces. He 
added that if the artists were unwilling to be prepared "and they lose the battle at that 
level, then they would have nobody else to blame but themselves." He joined with the 
Commissioner in the view that effort should be made by staff to assure the merchants 
that the amended sidewalk-width regulation would apply to sidewalks 12 1/2 feet to 
14 1/2 feet wide and not to narrower or wider sidewalks. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that, rather than putting the burden on the Clarks to 
scout for new spaces, he wanted to see incentive among the other artists to seek new 
spaces. 

Mr. Clark stated that the central issue was "the equality issue" relative to regulations 
of the same purpose for street artists and for charitable solicitors. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved to approve submittal of an ordinance to the 
Board of Supervisors amending Section 2405(c)(6) to require a street artist display to 
be not within ten (10) feet, instead of twelve (12) feet, of the outer edge of a doorway 
or entrance; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson and unanimously 
approved. 

Commissioner Anderson moved to approve amending Section 2405(c) (16) to require 
a street artist display to maintain eight (8) feet, instead often (10) feet, of a 
pedestrian passageway; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith 
and unanimously approved. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith urged the creation and use of a diagram showing 
street artist maintenance of pedestrian passageway as a means of possibly allaying 
any merchant opposition to the measures. 

The Commissioners agreed that the "equality issue" should be stressed at the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Mr. Clark stated that the artists intended to send informational letters on the issue to 
the Board members prior to the hearing. 

ACTION 
2. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL BY 

PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATION 
OF TEMPORARY WINTER HOLIDAY SELLING SPACES FOR STREET 
ARTISTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND AT HARVEY MILK PLAZA; 
DESIGNATION FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2001 - JANUARY 15, 2001 

Program Director Lazar explained that, for the last 19 years, the Board of 
Supervisors, at the request of the Arts Commission, had granted temporary additional 
spaces in the Downtown area for the winter holiday season. For the upcoming season, 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 4 of 1 1 



the Program Director was proposing that the following be approved by the Arts 
Commission for submittal to the Board: 

The same fifty-six (56) temporary spaces in the Downtown area as had been 
designated for the previous 2 winter holiday seasons (including the same 52 spaces as 
had been designated for the previous 8 winter holiday seasons). 

One (1) new temporary space to be designated on Stockton Street, east side, O'Farrell 
to Geary Streets (opposite the open cafe area of Macy's Men's Store). 

One (1) new temporary space to be designated on Post street, south side, Grant 
Avenue to Kearny Street (adjacent to Gump's and next to winter holiday space "Z- 
38"). 

Six (6) new temporary spaces to be designated on Sansome Street, west side, at Bush 
Street. 

The same seven (7) temporary spaces at Harvey Milk Plaza as had been designated 
for the previous 6 winter holiday seasons and the winter holiday season of 1992-93. 

The same period of time for the designation of all temporary spaces (November 15- 
January 15) as had been designated for the previous 1 1 years. 

The Program Director had written to Gump's and to Macy's the reasons for the 
requested spaces and had sent the two stores scale drawings of the proposed locations. 
Mr. Steve Zullig, Operations Manager of Gump's, responded in favor of the space in 
front of his store. In addition, Ms. Linda Mjellem, Executive Director of Union 
Square Association, had responded on behalf of Mr. Louis Meunier, Executive Vice 
President of Macy's, in support of the space in front of Macy's. 

Mr. Lazar expressed his appreciation of Ms. Mjellem's efforts, on his behalf, in 
verbally communicating these proposals to the representatives of the two stores. He 
also submitted to the Commissioners a letter from Ms. Mjellem stating her 
organization's support of all the proposed spaces in the Union Square area with the 
stipulations "that the street artists comply with all the relevant regulations; and that 
the Commission step up enforcement of illegal vending. " The Program Director 
interpreted this as requesting the Street Artists Program to fund additional hours of 
off-duty police officers hired annually by the Program to cite and confiscate the 
merchandise of illegal vendors. 

Ms. Mjellem's letter requested the conveyance to the Arts Commissioners of her 
organization's "concern ... about a growing problem of illegal vendors on Market 
street ... particularly evident on the weekends on the north side of Market Street from 
Stockton to Sutter Street. We need to address this problem. If it is not solved, it will 
undermine the City's Street Artist Program. I am anxious to work with you and any 
other appropriate City agencies to resolve this problem. " 

The Program Director stated the temporary benefits to the street artists and the stores 
in hiring off-duty police officers to confiscate the illegal merchandise of unlicensed 
vendors during the winter holiday season, but he lamented the fact that the vendors 
were entitled to re-claim their merchandise which they ultimately continued to sell 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 5 of 1 1 



illegally during the ensuing year. Ms. Mjellem and other representatives of downtown 
business were bothered by this also. Ms. Mjellem, Ms. Leigh Ann Matsche of Union 
Square Business Improvement District, and Mr. Ken Cleveland of Building Owners 
and Managers Association had agreed to accompany the Program Director to a 
meeting at some time in the future with the District Attorney's office. Mr. Lazar had 
also received from these representatives verbal support of his idea of the possible 
formation of a committee of business representatives, Street Artists Program staff, 
and City Attorney staff to draft an ordinance enabling the City to permanently 
confiscate unlicensed merchandise on a second offense. (Such a multi-business and 
City personnel committee had been organized by the City Attorney in the late 1980s 
to draft the ordinance regulating charitable solicitors.) 

Commissioner Stermer asked whether any of the merchants, who were as concerned 
as the Arts Commission about the illegal vendors, had ever been approached to share 
in the Program's cost of the off-duty police officers. 



Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth responded that he felt this was a matter 
appropriate for the Business Improvement District whose businesses were taxed for 
the purpose of improving the area. 

The Program Director stated that over a decade ago - prior to the formation of the 
Business Improvement District - he had solicited downtown businesses to contribute 
to the cost of hiring off-duty officers; but it had been to no avail. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, technically, the street artist fees were only to be 
used to enforce the street artist regulations and not to enforce the law "in a general 
municipal sense", but "in the process of policing us" the police "sweep up the 
illegals." 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged this view as an additional reason for the 
merchants to share the police costs. 

Mr. Newirth perceived this as a possibility of "a very successful collaboration" 
between the Street Artists Program and the Business Improvement District in seeking 
to remedy the problem. 

Street Artist Bill Clark raised the issue of a lack of communication between some 
police officers and store merchants with respect to last year's police relocation of the 
artists from their Geary Street spaces which were impacted by animal rights protests. 
He requested that a clause be inserted in the winter holiday spaces legislation which 
would affirm the authority of the police to relocate the artists in the event that the 
Geary Street spaces are impacted, or about to be impacted, by a protest. Mr. Clark 
would then have the directive in the form of an explicit, written statement which he 
could show to any officer or merchant who may question the relocation. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he did not feel that the issue required legislation 
but that, more appropriately, it should be a written statement from the Police 
Department affirming its authority to relocate the artists, which any artist could then 
show to a doubting officer or merchant. The Commissioner asked the Program 
Director to request such a statement from the Chiefs office and to send copies to the 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 6 of 1 1 



two police stations that enforce the Downtown-Union Square area, as well as to the 
street artists. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith, returning to the enforcement issue, endorsed the idea 
of the Business Improvement District, the Union Square Association, and other 
business parties sharing the cost with the Street Artists Program of the enforcement of 
illegal vendors. 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Lazar to discuss the issue with the merchant groups 
and request their consideration of including their portions of the cost in their budgets 
for next year. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved to approve the proposal by the Program 
Director for Board of Supervisors designation of temporary winter holiday selling 
spaces for street artists in the Downtown area and at Harvey Milk Plaza for 
November 15, 2001 to January 15, 2002; the motion was seconded by Commissioner 
Anderson and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 
3. HEARING ON APPEAL OF RECOMMENDATION OF ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE OF STREET ARTISTS AND CRAFTSMEN EXAMINERS TO 
DISAPPROVE ITEM; POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 

Julio Bonilla (Certificate #5002) and Lily Gonzalez (Certificate #5148): appeal of 
August 30, 2001 recommendation of Advisory Committee of Street Artists and 
Craftsmen Examiners that Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Gonzalez not be certified to sell 
submitted computer-generated machine-embroidered clothing. 

Program Director Lazar reported that at the August 30th screening of applicants' 
wares, the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners had 
disapproved the samples of computer-generated machine-embroidered clothing 
submitted by Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Gonzalez because the small size of the 
embroidered images they showed did not significantly alter the form of the items - the 
clothing - which they did not make. The Program Director added that, in a similar 
case, the Advisory Committee had approved the submitted samples because the size 
of that artist's images covered much of the front of the clothing and thereby 
significantly altered it. He noted that these decisions on computer-generated 
embroidered clothing were consistent with the Committee's decisions on the 
silkscreening of clothing not made by the applicant: the Committee has allowed the 
sale of silkscreened T-shirts and sweatshirts so long as the applicants' designs 
spatially cover the shirts, thereby significantly altering the form of products not made 
by the applicants. 

The Program Director addressed Mr. Bonilla's comment in his letter that the Advisory 
Committee did not "give us a full opportunity to display the work we have done." Mr. 
Lazar stated that the Advisory Committee's chairman had informed him that, because 
of the unusually large amount of applicants at the screening, the Committee had not 
had the time to fully examine Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Gonzalez's items, and the 
chairman wanted the Program Director to apologize to the two applicants on behalf of 
the Committee. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 7 of 1 1 



In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, the Program Director stated 
that historically the Advisory Committee had refrained from specifying a size criteria 
for images on clothing not made by applicants, choosing rather to make verification 
of "significant alteration" on a case-by-case basis. 

The Commissioners examined the samples of clothing submitted by Mr. Bonilla and 
Ms. Gonzalez who stated that the Advisory Committee had not permitted them to 
show all their designs because of time constraint. The Commissioners noted that they 
were viewing large-scale images in relation to the shirts; in addition, there was a 
small-scale image but this was embroidered on a small child's shirt. The 
Commissioners stated that they had "no problem" with the samples they were 
viewing. Commissioner Stermer commented that one of the designs was "very 
inventive" as compared with most which he had seen on street artist displays. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth commented that if a customer were to buy a shirt 
because of the design on it but would not buy the shirt without its design, "then that's 
significant." Commissioner Stermer concurred that the customer would be "buying it 
for the design." 

Street Artist Barbara Zerbe stated that when she had applied for a certificate to sell 
her computer-generated embroidered clothing, the Advisory Committee had first 
disapproved her and then later approved her based on her showing that she drew her 
own designs, put them on the computer, and then generated the designs onto the 
clothing in her own home shop. The Advisory Committee, in addition to examining 
the size of her images in relation to the clothing, had gone into a detailed 
investigation of the image-production process itself and finally consented to let her 
use a computer-generated embroidery machine because, in addition to creating her 
own designs, she showed that she hand-sewed details on each item of clothing and 
personally machine-embroidered each item one by one. A typical shirt, she said, 
would involve 40 minutes of her time. She questioned whether Mr. Bonilla and Ms. 
Gonzalez had had to overcome the same obstacles which she had had to overcome in 
order to satisfy the Advisory Committee. 

Ms. Zerbe alerted the Commissioners to the widely-sold, zip-up fleece jackets seen at 
the Wharf, whereby small images were embroidered on the jackets because a 
computer-generated embroidery machine is incapable of bridging a jacket's zippered 
opening with a full-front design. Ms. Zerbe said that, while she herself had not been 
screened and approved to sell such embroidered jackets, she was approved to sell her 
own handmade clothes. If Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Gonzalez saw jackets with small-scale 
embroidered images being sold at Ms. Zerbe's display, it was because she actually 
sewed the jackets, put the snaps and zippers on them, and then embroidered them. 
Should the Commissioners approve the two applicants to sell commercially 
manufactured jackets with small-size embroidery on them, the door would be opened 
for Ms. Zerbe to do the same, and this, she said, might be beneficial for her business. 
On the other hand, if such a door opened, there existed the possibility of 
commercially manufactured fleece jackets - which artists could purchase wholesale at 
$7 apiece - flooding the Street Artists Program and seriously jeopardizing the sales of 
Ms. Zerbe's handsewn clothing and handcrafts created by other street artists. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Ms. Zerbe stated that, if she 
were on the Advisory Committee, she was not sure as to whether she would 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 8 of 1 1 

disapprove the items being shown by Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Gonzalez. She would 
certainly ask to see a video of the applicants producing the designs on their computer 
as well as the rest of their production. 

Mr. Bonilla told the Commissioners that he and Ms. Gonzalez drew their own 
designs. He produced a video which, he said, showed them creating the work. He also 
submitted photographs he had taken of the embroidered clothing on Barbara and John 
Zerbe's display. The pictures, he said, showed small-scale images in relation to the 
Zerbes' clothing, and he stated that if they were allowed to sell such image sizes, then 
so should he. 

Program Director Lazar stated that, if the Advisory Committee had questioned 
whether the designs were produced by the two applicants, he would urge that the 
Commissioners view the video; but the Advisory Committee had not questioned this. 
The Committee's disapproval was boiled down to just one factor: the size of the 
designs in relation to the clothes upon which they had been embroidered. 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that Ms. Zerbe was worried about the 
possibility of "the erosion of standards for handmade objects" in the Program, that if 
commercially manufactured garments with small designs or logos on them were to be 
allowed to sell, they would "have an unfair competitive edge on the real craftspeople 
who make their own clothes." 

Program Director Lazar recommended that, in view of the Advisory Committee's 
history of decisions on image size coverage of silkscreened items and in view of the 
street artist ordinance's definition of "handcrafted item", Mr. Bonilla and Ms. 
Gonzalez be approved to sell their computer-generated embroidered items with the 
stipulation that the designs "significantly cover the object." If their small-scale 
design, "as beautiful and unique as it is," were approved, "I feel you will open a door 
and make it difficult for the screening committee to rule someone else out" on the 
basis of insignificant alteration, "and then we may have a proliferation of the same 
kind of merchandise" that was seen throughout the city a decade ago by vendors 
calling themselves "charitable solicitors." 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that his Committee was prohibited from 
approving an object's artwork because of aesthetic reasons. With respect to the 
embroidered items shown by the two applicants, the issue, he viewed, was whether to 
stipulate an image-size condition with approval of the items, even though size should 
not be considered as an across-the-board "definitive" factor in the alteration of objects 
not created by an applicant. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith acknowledged the issue of whether the Program 
would be eroded by opening the door to the sale of minimally-embroidered 
commercially manufactured clothing: for example, he said, "a Nike shirt that was 
probably made on Truk Island by fourteen-year-olds ... is precisely what the Street 
Artists Program is trying not to encourage." Nevertheless, if "a small logo" created by 
Mr. Bonilla for his commercially manufactured shirt were to be approved, he felt the 
Advisory Committee would have difficulty in the future in making decisions on 
similar small-sized designs. 

Commissioner Stermer clarified that the issue being considered was not whether the 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 l/st_arts/sam09 1 20 1 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 9 of 1 1 



two applicants actually drew the designs for the embroidering - they passed that test, 
he said, in earlier screenings. The issue was whether they "significantly altered the 
pieces" they did not make. 

Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the computer-generated machine- 
embroidered clothing exhibited by Julio Bonilla and Lily Gonzalez at the Program 
Committee meeting of September 12, 2001; the motion was seconded by 
Commissioner Freebairn-Smith and unanimously approved. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that, as an Arts Commissioner, he was put on 
the Committee "to try and distinguish the Street Artists Program from the four 
hundred T-shirts that are being sold in tiny retail shops all over the city. Our Program 
is selling something under the banner of the Arts Commission; I personally ... would 
like it to be distinguished by being handmade at least and hopefully very handsome 
and separate from the general market in the millions of sweatshirts that are sold in 
San Francisco itself." While the items shown by the two applicants were, he said, 
"very nice," their work "was a very borderline case for me." He questioned: "Why are 
we running this Program if we are not presenting art ... that aspires to be at least arts 
and crafts at a high level?" 

Program Director Lazar clarified that the street artists ordinance provides that a 
screening of street artist wares is a verification and not a jurying. It is a verification 
"that the work is of the creation of the applicant." The next question, he said, was 
what was meant by the phrase "of the creation". The guideline used by the Advisory 
Committee in understanding the phrase was the ordinance's own definition of 
"handcrafted item": "an item predominantly created or significantly altered in form by 
the street artist." The word "significantly", he said, was "a loaded word": what was 
significant to Commissioner Freebairn-Smith, for example, may not be significant to 
Commissioner Stermer or Commissioner Anderson. That was why verification of 
items, while guided by the Commission's arts and crafts screening criteria, has had to 
be done on a case-by-case basis. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he was relieved that his Committee was not 
empowered to judge artistic merit, "because there's just not that many good artists in 
the world, and certainly not in San Francisco, to fill up the street. ... The odds are 
against us being able to populate our streets with really inventive, good artists" of 
whom "we would all agree ... are bringing something new and excellent and skillful 
and imaginative to the marketplace." 

Relative to the Commissioner's point, Program Director Lazar stated that one of the 
greatest characteristics of the Program was "that it's a program of opportunity for 
people." He referred to the recent Examiner two-page feature on the Program and 
stated that "it was by no accident that it appeared in the classified section - it was 
geared to people looking for work." The Program Director went on to say that he felt 
good about that aspect of the Program because during "great times and lean times, 
this Program has been there for people to make a living; and what could be more 
grass rootsy than to do something with your own hands and make a living from it?" 

Commissioner Stermer stated that this was the major reason why he liked the 
Program. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 10 of 1 1 



DISCUSSION 

REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar stated that the crux of his report was centered on the illegal 
vending problem and that he was looking forward to an opportunity to meet with the 
store merchant and building owner organizations, the District Attorney's staff, and the 
City Attorney's staff to coordinate legislation and/or enforcement strategy relative to 
the issue. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith wanted to see an effective method of permanently 
removing "the muddle of junk on the sidewalk" which was "disturbing" to the Street 
Artists Program. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth stated that, while he supported the idea of 
working with the District Attorney and the City Attorney on the problem, he was 
more optimistic about "joining forces with other entities that have the same interests" 
as the Program. He cited the Union Square Buisness Improvement District, the Union 
Square Association, and the Market Street Association as interested parties to 
approach to contribute funds to deal with the issue; otherwise, he said, if it is always 
on the shoulders of the Arts Commission to enforce against the illegal vending, he did 
not feel the problem would be eradicated. 

Commissioner Stermer added that, if this remained the case, the level of enforcement 
would never be satisfactory to the business groups. 

Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt the business groups would want to 
contribute to the costs of such enforcement "because it would help them as well." 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that so long as the street artists were paying for the 
enforcement, the business groups would not be inclined to contribute funds for it. 

Mr. Newirth interjected that the business groups were presently saying that the 
Commission was not doing the job adequately and that they wanted to see more 
enforcement. And that was why he felt the time was right to approach the groups to 
contribute to the cost to achieve more enforcement. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that the business groups, by not contributing funds, 
have left it up to the Street Artists Program to contribute; because this has not been 
enough, the groups, he said, turn around and use that as a reason why the artists 
shouldn't receive additional locations. Mr. Clark went on to say that another problem 
which had been incurred at times was an inability on the part of the Police 
Department to fill the enforcement assignments requested by the Program. 

Mr. Newirth stated that if the business groups were to do a cost-benefit analysis in 
relation to the amount of funding they would contribute and were to find that, as a 
result of their contribution, increased enforcement of the illegal vending problem 
enhanced their stores' sales, they would be able to calculate the worthiness of their 
investment. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that such contributions from the business groups in 
addition to the Street Artists Program's contribution would increase police presence 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | September 12, 2001 Page 1 1 of 1 1 



on the streets and would thereby clean up other widely discussed street problems, 
among them, garbage and homelessness. The Commissioner saw increased police 
presence help in these ways in his own neighborhood. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, prior to the advent of the Street Artists Program, 
the merchant associations "had no problem cleaning up the streets" of illegal vending; 
"it's only been after the Program existed or wherever we happen to locate ourselves 
that they have problems getting rid of the illegals through their own means. ... But we 
can only do so much." 

Mr. Newirth stated that this was precisely why the Business Improvement District 
was created. Mr. Newirth felt that the Street Artists Program should show the District 
that it needed to be directing some of its money more efficiently and, at the same 
time, address the illegal vending issue. 

Both Commissioner Stermer and Mr. Newirth asked the Program Director to request 
the Business Improvement District to incorporate in its budget of next year an amount 
to assist or match funds of the Street Artists Program to pay for police enforcement of 
illegal vending. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
I. September 24, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/sam091201 .html 1 1/26/2003 



Street Artists Program Committee | October 10,2001 



file:///S|AVeb Staging/sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/agenda/200 l/st_arts/saa 1 1 00 1 



_S__F_ 
A C 



SAN FRANCISCO 
ARTS COMMISSION 






% 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, pctober 10, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 

25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, ste 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

Agenda 



MEETING CANCELLED 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
September 28, 2001 



DOCUMENTS OFF" 



oct i o :::? 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



9/28/01 1:12 PM 



a 



5F 

470.76 
-a 

"/a/of 



/ 



TT\ SAN FRANCISCO 
Ale ARTS COMMISSION 



^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE D 



Wednesday, November 14, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



NOV - 6 2CC1 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission Street 
Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Suite 60, San Francisco. CA 94102 during regular business 
hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 



f 



Agenda 



J 



I. HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE MOTIONS TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

ACTION 

Kan Wen Chong - Certificate # 5777. Alleged violations: (1) Improper, disorderly, 
hazardous conduct of business (assaulting a member of the public while selling) 9/1/01; (2) 
Having a salesperson, 9/1/01 , (3) Selling in locations not designated by the Board of 
Supervisors, 9/1/01 Leavenworth/Lombard Streets, 9/3/01 & 9/6/01 Jefferson/Taylor 
Streets. Due to the above charges of serious violations of the street artist ordinance, the 
Arts Commission's Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director 
have withheld issuing or renewing Mr. Chong 's certificate pending a decision by the Street 
Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of photographs taken of the alleged incidents of 9/1/01, copies of the SFPD 
"Incident Report" of the alleged 9/3/01 incident, and copies of the Program Director's written telephone report 
by police regarding the alleged 9/6/01 incident, were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists 
Program Committee; copies of these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 
Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 



10/31/01 10:34 A) 



ACTION 

II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SCREENING CRITERIA 
FOR "COMPUTER-GENERATED MACHINE EMBROIDERY" AS 
RECOMMENDED BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF STREET ARTISTS AND 
CRAFTSMEN EXAMINERS 

The Advisory Committee's recommendation is as follows: "The criteria for 
'Computer-Generated Art" shall apply to all machine embroidered items. In addition, 
the artist's design must be of a size and nature as to constitute the dominant and 
primary visual focus of each item." 

(In reference to this item, copies of the Advisory Committee's recommendation as stated in the committee 
minutes of 9/27/01, were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of 
these may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, 
during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
III. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENT OF STREET 
ARTIST FEE 

(In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may consider and discuss the 
funds available in the Street Artists Fund.) 



DISCUSSION 
IV. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
V. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 



ACTION 
VI. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee [ Meetings Index ] 
October 30, 2001 



C 



2 of 2 10 Jl 01 10: 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to 
the needs of persons with disabilities. 

Full Commission meetings and individual Committee meetings of the Arts Commission will 
be held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Van Ness Avenue 
and Oak Street. Unless another site is specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement 
level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including persons in wheelchairs, will be 
available . 

For full Commission or Committee meetings at 25 Van Ness Avenue: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI lines serving the 25 Van Ness Avenue building 
are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, there are 
the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses, the F Line streetcars, 
and the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro station, at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Streets, one half block from the building. Also, serving the Van Ness/Market vicinity 
are the #9 San Bruno and #26 Valencia buses. 

There is accessible curbside parking on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings in City Hall: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving City 
Hall are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, 
there are the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses and the F 
Line streetcars stopping between Van Ness/Market Streets and Hyde/Market Streets, and 
the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro stations at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Street and at Civic Center. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to 
Davies Hall and the War Memorial complex. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, 
environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at 
public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical 
based products. Please help the city to accommodate these individuals. 



American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available 
upon request at meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma of the Community Arts and Education 
Program at (415) 252-2596 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored 
if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the 
people and that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of 
the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1 Dr. 
Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102; by telephone at (415) 554- 
7724; by fax at (415) 554-5163; or by e-mail at Donna_Hall @ ci.sf.ca.us. Citizens interested 
in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on 
the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us. 



c 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 



Page 1 of 9 



s F1SAN FRANCISCO 
Xc" ARTS COMMISSION 



-STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, November 14, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 60, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPI 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 
415-252-2581. 

^Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrew Brother Elk, Rod Freebairn-Smith, 
Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: Kirk Anderson 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk; Raymond Wong, Senior 
Accountant 

In attendance were Street Artists Kan Wen Chong, Bill Clark, Bob Clark, Barbara 
Michalak, Johnny Wong 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. 



ACTION 

I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Kan Wen Chong - Certificate # 5777. Alleged violations: (1) Improper, disorderly, 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 2 of 9 



hazardous conduct of business (assaulting a member of the public while selling), 
9/1/01; (2) Having a salesperson, 9/1/01; (3) Selling in locations not designated by 
the Board of Supervisors (Leavenworth/Lombard Streets, 9/1/01; Jefferson/Taylor 
Streets, 9/3/01 & 9/6/01). Due to the above charges of serious violations (violations 
No. 1 and No. 2) of the street artist ordinance, the Arts Commission's Director of 
Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director withheld issuing or renewing 
Mr. Chong's certificate pending a decision by the Street Artists Program Committee 
on whether to issue or renew the certificate. 

At Mr. Chong's request for an interpreter received an hour before the hearing, the 
Street Artists Program secured the voluntary services of Mr. Raymond Wong, Arts 
Commission Senior Accountant, acting as interpreter for Mr. Chong, members of the 
Street Artists Committee, and the Program Director. 

At the request of the Chair, Program Director Lazar related the recent history of Mr. 
Chong's alleged violations and submitted copies of the following evidence: (1) photos 
taken by a public observer of Mr. Chong and an "assistant" with a street artist display 
at the southeast corner of Leavenworth and Lombard Streets, a non-designated 
location, on 9/1/01; (2) paper copy of a 9/5/01 e-mail report received by the Program 
regarding Mr. Chong on 9/1/01 allegedly refusing to leave the Leavenworth/Lombard 
location at the request of a DPT traffic officer and three neighbors, his allegedly 
"shouting at us that 'I have a permit', and his alleged assault "with his camera" on one 
of the neighbors; (3) copy of a Police Incident Report of 9/3/01 of Mr. Chong 
allegedly selling at the corner of Jefferson/Taylor Streets, a non-designated location, 
and his alleged refusal of the officer's request to leave; (4) and copy of a Program 
staff report of a telephoned report by the Police regarding Mr. Chong allegedly selling 
on 9/6/01 adjacent to 190 Jefferson Street, a non-designated location. The Program 
Director went on to say that he had received reports that Mr. Chong was also selling 
in front of The Exploratorium, a non-designated location, and that he had refused to 
leave when asked by authorities to do so. 

The Program Director pointed out that the 9/3/01 Police Incident Report stated that, 
when Mr. Chong showed the officer his Arts Commission certificate and told him "he 
was on a public street and that he could sell his goods on any street, " the officer 
"advised Chong that the was not in a permitted location" and that "the permit was 
only for certain locations ... Chong refused to leave" whereupon the officer cited him. 
The Program Director further pointed out that, just three days later, on 9/6/01, Mr. 
Chong was found in another illegal location, and the Police let him off with a 
warning. 

With regard to the charges of Mr. Chong having assaulted a member of the public and 
having a salesperson, the Program Director observed that there were no witnesses to 
the incident present and therefore requested that these charges be withdrawn. The 
photos received of Mr. Chong's "assitant" did not show the person collecting any 
money and therefore were not, without the testimony of a witness, supporting 
evidence of the charge of having a salesperson. 

Mr. Raymond Wong interpreted for Mr. Chong the remaining third charge and its 
evidence: selling in locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors. (Through 
the course of the hearing, Mr. Chong not only conversed with Mr. Wong in Chinese 
but he addressed the Commissioners and the Program Director in English. Two of his 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/200 1 /st_arts/sam 1 1 1 40 1 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 3 of 9 



statements were "I lose my job" and "How can I take care of my children". He also 
said he had a seventy-seven year-old mother.) 

Translating for the Program Director, Mr. Wong asked Mr. Chong why he chose to 
sell in illegal locations when the Program Director told him, at the time of his 
licensing, that he could sell only in the street artist locations. Mr. Wong further 
conveyed the Program Director's question on whether Mr. Chong intended to keep on 
selling wherever he wished. Mr. Chong denied knowing the locations of the street 
artist spaces. 

Mr. Lazar informed the Commissioners that the Program's Certification Clerk, 
Antoinette Worthy, when licensing him, gave Mr. Chong the maps of all the spaces; 
this was corroborated by Mr. Chong, in the course of the hearing, when he pulled out 
the maps from his briefcase. 

The Program Director asked whether Mr. Chong would be willing to meet with the 
Program Director - for the second time - to be shown the locations "street by street"; 
or did he intend to keep on selling wherever he wanted to sell? Mr. Chong responded 
with a statement about the welfare of his family; whereupon Mr. Lazar asked: "Does 
he intend to feed his family by following the rules?" Mr. Chong continued speaking 
about his family. 

Through Mr. Wong, Commissioner Stermer stated to Mr. Chong: "Sir, the question is 
simple. If you wish to support your family, you must, in this Program, follow the 
rules. Do you understand that?" Mr. Chong replied in English: "I understand." 

Commissioner Stermer asked him why he had fought with the police officers and the 
residents when they told him he was not in a legal space. Translating Mr. Chong's 
response, Mr. Wong stated: "He said he will follow the rules. ..." and that there would 
be "no more fights." 

Mr. Lazar stated that, after Mr. Chong's screening and before he received his license, 
the Program Director sat with Mr. Chong for an hour in the waiting area explaining in 
detail the workings of the Program - the lottery system of selecting spaces, etc. - and, 
by the responses he gave, Mr. Lazar "knew" Mr. Chong "could understand" the rules 
and procedures. At that time, Mr. Chong told him that his wife had left him and that 
he was the sole support of his family; and Mr. Lazar had told him that he had an 
opportunity of feeding his family by selling in accord with the Program's rules. He 
had also encouraged Mr. Chong to look for extra work and not to rely exclusively on 
his street artist selling. "We didn't just take his money and say, 'Out the door, you're 
on your own!'." 

Mr. Johnny Wong stated that he was a licensed street artist and, in addition, an 
employee of The Exploratorium. He observed Mr. Chong on several occasions 
outside of The Exploratorium with his digital camera setup soliciting for business. 
Mr. Wong recognized him from the time when they were both screened on the same 
day for their street artist certificates. "I told him, as a person to person, not as a street 
artist ... this is federal ground; you can't do this here." He also informed him that the 
area was patroled by park rangers; but Mr. Chong, he said, told him he had an Arts 
Commission license. To this, Mr. Wong responded that he, too, had an Arts 
Commission license and that "you probably don't recognize me ... I was there the 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 4 of 9 



same day; I actually helped you translate. ..." He spoke to him for a half hour, he said, 
trying to convince him to go to the Wharf and take a space there, but Mr. Chong told 
him: " 'There's no good spot out there. This area is nice.' " Mr. Wong told him that the 
reason why other vendors were not on the property was because such activities were 
not allowed, to which, he said, Mr. Chong kept repeating that it was "a nice spot" and 
that he had a family to take care of." He refused to leave. Ever since then, Mr. Wong 
said, "he's been seen out there almost every few days. ... Every time when I walk out 
there, every time when I drive by, he's there. ... I told him earlier at first, 'I'm not 
trying to hurt you; I'm just trying to ask you to do the right thing.' " He told them that 
with the complaints acquired by the Program about him, the street artists "don't want 
to get blamed for something that you do." 

Mr. Wong also stated that he had offered to help Mr. Chong as a translator in 
information on getting jobs, getting on job lists, etc. 

Responding to a question from Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Wong stated that The 
Exploratorium's manager and he, while upset over his presence, refrained from 
calling the park rangers about him because he knew "his family" and "his problem.... 
I don't want him to get arrested, I don't want him to get his equipment confiscated; I 
just want him to go by the rules." 

Mr. Chong stated that he required "the view" in order to take his pictures. 

In response to a question from Commissioner Stermer, Program Director Lazar stated 
the following possible options the Committee could take relative to acting on Mr. 
Chong's certificate, should he be found in violation: the Committee could impose the 
Commission's standard penalty of a three-week suspension for a first offense of 
selling in illegal locations; or the Committee, if sensing a lack of cooperation on Mr. 
Chong's part, could override the standard penalty by increasing it all the way to 
revocation and/or refusal to renew the certificate; the Committee could also defer a 
suspension to a less economically viable time of the year. 

Mr. Lazar stated that he would be willing to spend the Program's time to meet with 
Mr. Chong at the lottery with Chinese artists to interpret and show him the lottery 
procedures if Mr. Chong were willing to cooperate. 

Through Mr. Raymond Wong, Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Chong if he was 
willing to cooperate with all of the rules of the Street Artists Program and willing to 
meet with the Program Director and interpreters at the lottery to show him the 
procedures; "that being done," the Commissioner asked, would Mr. Chong "abide by 
all of the rules and cause no more trouble?" 

Mr. Chong responded in English that he would "listen to" the Program Director "one 
hundred per cent." 

Mr. Johnny Wong offered to help Mr. Chong as a translator and participate with him 
in the lottery process. To this, Mr. Chong replied in English: "Thank you. I don't want 
it." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, Mr. Chong stated that he went to 
the lottery three times but it was over when he got there at 10:00 a.m. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 5 of 9 



Mr. Lazar told him that he should arrive at the lottery at 8:45 a.m. and asked him to 
set up an appointment to with him to meet there. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that, while he agreed with the assistance being 
offered to Mr. Chong, he wanted him to understand that if he violated again, sterner 
measures would be taken against his certificate. 

Commissioner Stermer expressed that he felt there was, within Mr. Chong's situation, 
a language issue and a "desperation" issue that was not the Commission's 
responsibility, "but it is a human problem." 

Commissioner Freebaim-Smith referred to On-Lok and other Asian community 
service groups who could help "to take some of the stress away, perhaps," from Mr. 
Chong; he urged him to look into these services. 

The Commissioners discussed the possibility of imposing a three-week suspension to 
commence in mid- January which would allow Mr. Chong to participate in the winter 
holiday selling season. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth suggested that there be a stipulation that the 
disciplinary action commence earlier should Mr. Chong commit another substantiated 
violation prior to mid- January. 

Commissioner Roth moved that Kan Wen Chong be found in violation for selling in 
locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors, and that his certificate be 
suspended for three (3) weeks commencing January 16, 2002 unless a substantiated 
report is received in the interim by the Arts Commission whereupon the suspension be 
commenced immediately; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Brother Elk and 
unanimously approved. 

The above action was translated by Mr. Wong to Mr. Chong who responded "yes" 
when asked if he understood. 

Commissioner Stermer told Mr. Chong that he could "go to work right away; nothing 
has changed really. As long as you follow the rules, nothing will happen. You can 
support your family, you can go to work - if you follow the rules. ... But if you don't 
follow the rules, you are going to be stopped from selling ..." After having this 
translated to him, Mr. Chong replied in the affirmative that he understood. In 
addition, Mr. Wong stated that he was satisfied that Mr. Chong understood. 

Through Mr. Wong, Program Director Lazar conveyed a warning that if the Program 
were to receive a Police report of Mr. Chong violating again, the Program Director 
would ask the reporting officer to confiscate Mr. Chong's certificate and send it to the 
Program office. Upon receiving the warning through translation, Mr. Chong said in 
English: "Okay." 

Mr. Wong was requested to translate for Mr. Chong his right of appeal procedure 
with the Board of Appeals, as stated in the Program Director's "Notice of Hearing" 
sent to Mr. Chong. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 6 of 9 



ACTION 

2. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE SCREENING 
CRITERIA FOR "COMPUTER-GENERATED MACHINE EMBROIDERY" 
AS RECOMMENDED BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF STREET ARTISTS 
AND CRAFTSMEN EXAMINERS 

The Commissioners referred to the 9/27/01 minutes of the Advisory Committee of 
Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners and reviewed the Advisory Committee's 
recommendation for "Computer-Generated Machine Embroidery". The 
recommendation included a provision for applying to computer-generated machine 
embroidered items the present criteria for "Computer-Generated Art" which states: 

"I) The artist must demonstrate, in front of the Advisory Committee, creating his/her 
own images on a new disk on a computer or other equipment. The artist is required to 
bring a computer or other equipment with extension cord and necessary components 
to demonstrate creating the art with the equipment. 

"2) Images not of the artist's own creation must be significantly altered inform and 
shall be examined for approval on a case-by-case basis. 

"3) All computer-generated or other printed work must bear the artist's printed 
signature, initials, logo, or name of business on or near the image. " 

Commissioner Brother Elk moved that the Advisory Committee's recommendation on 
screening criteria for "Computer-Generated Machine Embroidery" be approved, as 
follows: "The criteria for 'Computer-Generated Art' shall apply to all machine 
embroidered items. In addition, the artist's design must be of a size and nature as to 
constitute the dominant and primary visual focus of each item. " The motion was 
seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 

3. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENT OF 
STREET ARTIST FEE 

The Program Director presented a proposal to introduce a gradual four-year increase 
in the street artist certificate fee. The fee would increase gradually while the 
Program's savings of accumulated surplus fees (from prior years) would be absorbed 
by projected budget deficits over the next four years. The proposal projected the 
present savings of $156,000 and interest to be, in covering the projected deficits, 
exhausted by fiscal year 2005-06. By that time, given the current number of street 
artists (384), the artists' annual fee would be increased by $94 in order to fully cover 
the projected budget which would no longer be benefitting from the surplus savings. 
Rather than deliver to the artists a sudden and very significant increase, the Program 
Director was recommending that the increase be introduced gradually. His proposal 
called for the current annual fee of $350, which had not been raised since 1991 , to be 
increased to $444, or by 27%, and that this increase be made in annual increments of 
$23.50, or less than 7%, for each of the next four years. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth recommended that the proposal be considered at 
both the Executive Committee and the Street Artists Committee in January; should 
there be a recommended adjustment in the fee the recommendation would be acted 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 7 of 9 



upon by the full Commission in February and included in the Commission's 
submitted budget to the Mayor. He went on to say that such consideration was 
analagous to long-range planning: the question of adjusting the fee should be 
revisited each year. 

The Program Director pointed out that any adjustment of the fee would be in the form 
of an ordinance subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, while he agreed with the Program Director's 
projected figures, he disputed the Controller's figure (as reported to the Arts 
Commission's accountant) on the interest earned on the savings balance during fiscal 
year 2000-01; the figure, Mr. Clark said, reflected interest earned at the end of the 
year, whereas interest is earned quarterly and therefore should have been reflected in 
a higher figure of an additional $2,000 - $3,000. He asked that the Program Director 
have this corroborated by the Controller's office. 

In response to a question from Commissioner Roth, Program Director Lazar stated 
that he expected the budget to increase as it has been. This would be accounted for 
not only by salary increases but also by the Program's increased expenditures for the 
Police Department and the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen 
Examiners. (The Board of Supervisors next month would be considering the 
Commission's request to remove the limitation on the number of the Advisory 
Committee's meetings/studio visits/street monitoring assignments, all of which merit 
compensation.) 

Commissioner Stermer asked that the item be continued to the meeting of January. 

DISCUSSION 
4. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

The Program Director reported that he had submitted the Program's request to the 
Police Department for the hiring of off-duty officers to enforce the street artist 
ordinance against both street artists and non-licensed vendors during the winter 
holiday season. 

The Program Director further reported on attending a meeting of Downtown 
merchant associations, Police, and Parking and Traffic personnel on the upcoming 
traffic, vending, and other activities in the Downtown area during the holiday season. 
The captains and representatives of the three police stations in the Downtown area 
agreed to convey Mr. Lazar's request that they inform their officers of the relocation 
of street artists to the west side of Stockton Street between Geary and Post Streets 
during anti-fur protests in front of the Neiman Marcus store. In return, Mr. Lazar was 
requested by the merchants to mark the relocated spaces on the pavement and draw a 
map of them and hand it to each store on the block with an explanation that the spaces 
would be occupied only on anti-fur protest days. This was done. 

The Program Director also reported that construction on the Haslett Warehouse took 
over the artists' Hyde Street spaces which permitted the Program Director to mark 
fifteen temporary replacement spaces in North Beach, as authorized by resolution of 
the Board of Supervisors two years ago (at the request of the Arts Commission on 
behalf of the artists). 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 8 of 9 



Additionally, the Program Director had started to paint the numbers and brackets of 
the winter holiday spaces. While working on the pavement of Sansome Street, at 
Bush Street, Mr. Lazar reported, a well-known unlicensed vendor of sunglasses and 
jewelry approached him, looked down at the numbers and brackets, and exclaimed 
loudly: "How do you like that! The illegals have the best spots, and the street artists 
take them from us!" 

Other sidewalk-painting duties of the Program Director included painting ten 
permanent spaces on the south side of Market,, between 4th Street and the 
intersection of O'Farrell Street and Grant Avenue. These were actually ten spaces 
"salvaged" from thirty-four which had been granted by the Board of Supervisors in 
1974; the spaces, however, had never been used by the artists because of a 
construction barricade, a low amount of foot traffic, and other elements of the locale. 
Now that the Four Seasons Residences had been completed and an adjacent mall 
created, the sidewalk had become attractive for business. But the placement of the 
doorways of the Four Seasons and the installment of a lengthy bus zone seriously 
restricted the amount of curbside space for street artists; and the net result was that 
the Program Director could fit in only ten of the previously awarded thirty- four 
spaces. 

The Program Director reported that he had presented the Commission's request to the 
Board of Supervisors' Finance Committee to restore the provision for interest to 
accumulate on any amount in the Street Artists Fund; the Finance Committee 
unanimously approved this. 

Commissioner Roth asked whether the Program would receive credit from the Police 
Department in the event one of the Program's hired off-duty officers were to 
temporarily leave off enforcing the street artist ordinance in order to apprehend a 
violator of more serious crime. The Program Director responded that, in such a 
circumstance, he would seek credit. 

DISCUSSION 
5. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

Street Artist Barbara Michalak requested that the spaces "O'F-8" through "O'F-4" be 
re-marked to commence closer to the intersection of O'Farrell and Stockton Streets, as 
their present placement was inviting illegal selling in the area between the 
intersection and the first space. 

Program Director Lazar stated that he painted the spaces in strict accord with the 
street artist ordinance which, without Board of Supervisors exemption, provides that 
no street artist space can be placed within twelve feet of the outer edge of a doorway. 
Because the building at 55 Stockton Street (Crate-n-Barrel store) had constructed a 
curved doorway, the outer edge of the doorway "pushed" the spaces further down the 
sidewalk, leaving an open area on the sidewalk to attract either illegal vendors or 
street artists or both. 

The Program Director informed the Commissioners that he recently found out that the 
three street artist spaces on the west side of Stockton Street, O'Farrell to Ellis Streets, 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | November 14, 2001 Page 9 of 9 



were slated to be eradicated early next year due to the adjacent placement of a bus 
zone. The Traffic Engineering Division told the Program Director that a notice had 
been posted at the site early in 2000 inviting attendance at a community hearing on 
the matter, but that the artists denied seeing the notice, and the Program staff had 
never been formally informed of the hearing. Mr. Lazar studied the sidewalk and 
discovered that the current location of doorways would not permit the three spaces to 
be moved elsewhere on the sidewalk unless the Board of Supervisors were to agree to 
their exemption from the twelve-foot-from-doorway regulation. 

Street Artist Bill Clark suggested that the Board of Supervisors be requested to 
replace the three spaces by making three of the four temporary winter holiday spaces 
by Macy's into permanent spaces. 

Commissioner Stermer asked that consideration of Mr. Clark's proposal be placed on 
the Committee's next agenda. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
November 26, 2001 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2001/st_arts/saml 1 1401 .html 1 1/26/2003 



treet Artists Program Committee | December 12, 2001 



file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Clari... Page 3.0/sfac street_artists_prog.htm 



Til SAN FRANCISCO 
ac ARTS COMMISSION 



\J16 



■•-■-■"--- 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 



Wednesday, pecember 12, 2001 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, S#n Francisco, CA 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, ste 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

^.Agenda 



MEETING CANCELLED 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 

December 3, 2001 

12-06-01 A 1 : ■; 4 RCVD 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

DEC - B 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



1 2/3/0 1 11:13AM 



v_ 



C I Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 
/, 



file:///S|/WebStaging/sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/agenda/2001/st_arts/saa010902 







■ 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, January 9, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN - h 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave, Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

^Agenda 



ACTION 

I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE REQUEST BY PROGRAM 
DIRECTOR FOR ORDINANCE INCREASING THE STREET ARTIST 
CERTIFICATE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 TO $93.40 PER QUARTER OR 
$373.60 PER YEAR 

The proposed new certificate fee would be the first of four projected yearly incremental 
increases commencing July, 2002, in order to ultimately support the Program's budget 
entirely by its annual fee revenue without its being supplemented by surplus fees savings of 
prior years which, it is projected, will be depleted in four years. 

The fee increase would be the first since July, 1991, and would be subject to annual review 
by the Street Artists Program Committee. 

(In the process of considering this motion, the Street Artists Program Committee may consider and discuss the 
funds available in the Street Artists Fund.) 

(In reference to this item, copies of the Program Director's "PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE A GRADUAL 
4-YEAR INCREASE IN STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE" were provided to the Commissioners of the 



12/27/01 8:53 AM 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 file:///S|/Web Staging/sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/agenda/2001/st_arts/saa01( 

Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program 
office, 25 Van ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 
II HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROGRAM DIRECTORS 
RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL 

III. Jeffrey Shedrick - Certificate # 5695 (expired November 15, 2001). Alleged violations: 
(1) Selling in a location not designated by the Board of Supervisors (55 Stockton Street), 
8/26/01 and 10/3/01; (2) Selling within 12 feet of a doorway, 10/3/01; (3) Conducting 
business in an improper, disorderly, hazardous manner (having a vehicle parked in a 
non-parking zone adjacent to street artist display), 8/26/01 and 10/3/01. Due to the above 
charges of minor violations of the street artist ordinance, Mr. Shedrick was notified of an 
opportunity to have a public hearing with the Program Director to discuss the charges and 
to agree in writing to comply with the ordinance; because Mr. Shedrick has not requested 
such a hearing, the Program Director submits the charges with a recommendation of denial 
of certificate or renewal to the Program Committee. 

(In reference to this item, copies of 8/26/01 and 10/3/01 telephone reports received by the Street Artists 
Program office regarding the above alleged incidents, copies of 8/27/01 "NOTICE OF WARNING" issued to 
Mr^Shedrick, and copies of 10/4/01 "NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL" issued to Mr. Shedrick, were provided to the Commissioners of the Street 
Artists Program Committee; copies of these - with Mr. Shedrick's address deleted - may be obtained by the 
public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 

IV. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO REQUEST BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
TO DESIGNATE FORMER WINTER HOLIDAY SPACES "Z-48", "Z-49", AND 
"Z-50" (STOCKTON STREET, EAST SIDE, O'FARRELL TO GEARY STREETS; 
ADJACENT TO MACYS MENS STORE) AS PERMANENT, YEAR-ROUND 
SPACES 

This proposal was introduced by Street Artists Bill and Bob Clark at the previous Street Artists Program 
Committee meeting of November 14, 2001, as a measure to replace three spaces on Stockton Street, west side. 
O'Farrell to Ellis Streets, schedeuled to be eradicated in the spring of 2002 by the creation of an adjacent bus 
zone. 

DISCUSSION 
V. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
VII. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meeting s Index ] 






2 of 3 1 2/27/01 8:53 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to 
the needs of persons with disabilities. 

Full Commission meetings and individual Committee meetings of the Arts Commission will 
be held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Van Ness Avenue 
and Oak Street. Unless another site is specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement 
level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including persons in wheelchairs, will be 
available. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings at 25 Van Ness Avenue: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI lines serving the 25 Van Ness Avenue building 
are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, there are 
the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses, the F Line streetcars, 
and the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro station, at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Streets, one half block from the building. Also, serving the Van Ness/Market vicinity 
are the #9 San Bruno and #26 Valencia buses. 

There is accessible curbside parking on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings in City Hall: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving City 
Hall are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, 
there are the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses and the F 
Line streetcars stopping between Van Ness/Market Streets and Hyde/Market Streets, and 
the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro stations at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Street and at Civic Center. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to 
Davies Hall and the War Memorial complex. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, 
environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at 
public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical 
based products. Please help the city to accommodate these individuals. 



American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available 
upon request at meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma of the Community Arts and Education 
Program at (415) 252-2596 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored 
if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the 
people and that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of 
the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1 Dr. 
Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102; by telephone at (415) 554- 
7724; by fax at (415) 554-5163; or by e-mail at Donna_Hall @ ci.sf.ca.us. Citizens interested 
in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on 
the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us. 



c 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 



Page 1 of 14 



JLJL 

A C 



SAN FRANCISCO 
ARTS COMMISSION 



^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, January 9, 2002 

3:00 p.m. DOCUMENTS DEPT 

25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Suite 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2581. 

^Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Kirk Anderson, Andrew Brother Elk, Denise 
Roth 

Commissioners Absent: Rod Freebairn-Smith 

Staff Present: Howard Lazar, Street Artists Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, 
Certification Clerk 

In attendance were Street Artists Bill Clark, Bob Clark, Barbara Michalak, Edward Steneck; 
Ms. Jessica Yang of Cushman & Wakefield 

Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. 

ACTION 

I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE REQUEST BY 

PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR ORDINANCE INCREASING THE STREET 
ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 TO $93.40 PER 
QUARTER OR $373.60 PER YEAR 

Referring to his "PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE A GRADUAL 4- YEAR 
INCREASE IN STREET ARTIST CERTIFICATE FEE," the Commissioners heard 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_010902.htm 



1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 2 of 14 



Program Director Lazar's explanation of background issues relevant to the request. In 
recent years the Program was incurring a deficit due to the rising costs of salaries, 
police enforcement of the street artist ordinance, and other costs; consequently, the 
surplus fees savings from prior years was being used to cover the deficits, and, at the 
start of the current fiscal year (2001-02), the surplus had a balance of $122,645. This 
balance, he projected, would be depleted in the next four years or less. At that time, 
the program's budget would have to be self-supported entirely by its certificate fee 
revenue; and the fee, he projected, might be nearly a hundred dollars more - a 27% 
increase - for an annual certificate. The ethic behind his proposal to introduce a fee 
increase at the present time was, out of consideration of the artists, to gradually lessen 
the impact of the fee amount projected four years from now. 

Mr. Lazar clarified that he was not requesting approval of a four-year plan, as it was 
his understanding that the Board of Supervisors is empowered to approve a fee 
predicated on the Arts Commission's report of current annual revenue, ensuing 
expenses for the following year, and its assessment of a fee amount to cover the 
following year's expenses. The purpose of his describing a four-year plan was simply 
to show a four-year projection of how the surplus fees savings would be depleted and 
how it would be ultimately necessary to request a new fee that would be significantly 
higher than the present one. If the Commission were to wait until the depletion of the 
entire surplus and then ask the street artists to suddenly shoulder the significantly 
higher fee, the Program Director stated, this might cause many artists to leave the 
Program, and the remaining artists would then have to face an even higher fee in 
order to cover the expenses. It would be better, he felt, to increase the fee gradually 
over the next four years to avoid a dramatic loss of artists from the Program. This 
view, he reported, was shared by both the Commission's Director of Cultural Affairs 
and the Deputy Director. 

The current fee, which has not been raised since July, 1991, is $87.50 per quarter or 
$350 per year. The Program Director was requesting that, for fiscal year 2002-03, it 
be raised to $93.40 per quarter or $373.60 per year - a less than 7% increase. 

The Program Director urged that the adoption of a conservative $6 increase in the 
quarterly fee (or $24 increase in the annual fee) for next year be reviewed by the 
Commission next fall. If it were found to be significantly increasing the revenue, it 
would not necessarily have to be raised for the following year; or the opposite 
situation might be the case. 

In response to questions by Commissioner Stermer, the Program Director stated that 
he was basing next year's projected deficit of $25,030 on next year's budget of 
$165,030 minus fee revenue, at the present fee level, of $140,000, and that this 
projected revenue was based on the present mid-year collection of $70,000. 
Commissioner Stermer noted that these figures remained basically at the same level 
with the figures projected earlier by the Program Director, those of a lower budget 
amount of $159,820, a previous six-year average revenue of $134,400, and a 
projected deficit of $25,420. 

Commissioner Brother Elk noted that the Program, by law, must be self-sustaining 
and that the certificate fee could not be greater than that required to cover the costs of 
managing and enforcing the street artist ordinance. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_0 1 0902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 






SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 3 of 14 



In response to a question by Commissioner Brother Elk, Program Director Lazar 
stated that there was a possibility of the fee in four years being greater that which he 
projected, depending on the costs. The Commissioner noted that, if the Program 
continued in its projected deficits and ultimate depletion of its surplus, the Program 
would have to adopt at least a 24% increase in its fee. He observed that the projection 
duty was akin to running a business. 

Commissioner Stermer observed that "it is an interesting business" because it did not 
parallel other businesses in that (1) "a really bad winter - a really rainy winter - could 
wipe it out; a bad summer, and the tourists could wipe it out" and (2) a good economy 
did not necessarily mean increased fee revenue for the Program, as verified by the 
previous year's "dot com" boom economy which appeared to have lured many artists 
away from the Program for better paying jobs. 

Commissioner Brother Elk expressed hesitation about returning to the Board of 
Supervisors each year with a fee increase request, in view of the amount of time and 
effort on the part of staff and Commissioners in preparing and reviewing the four- 
year projection. 

Commissioner Stermer responded that the Commission may not have to return to the 
Supervisors each year if it is found that the revenue generated by next year's fee 
increase is sufficient to cover the costs for the next four years. 

Commissioner Roth stated that if the staff had to return to the Supervisors with 
subsequent fee requests, it could refer to the 4-year plan submitted by way of 
explanation to the Supervisors at this time. 

The Program Director stated that there were three factors which chip away at the 
accuracy of any predicted fee revenue for any year: (1) The street artists do not pay 
for their certificates on the same day or the same time of the year - they pay in 
keeping with the day they entered the Program; (2) at every renewal time, the artist 
has the choice to renew for a quarter or for a year; and (3) while many artists pay 
consistently for a year, there were others who pay for a quarter, leave the Program for 
one or two quarters, then return, or not return until the following year. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, the Program Director stated that a 
fee increase would not affect any artist who paid for a certificate under the current 
rate prior to the increase - until, of course, the artist's next renewal following the 
increase. 

Commissioner Stermer called for public comment. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that he was in opposition to any fee increase at this 
time. He submitted copies of the following: "STATEMENT MADE BY DEPUTY 
CITY ATTORNEY AT STREET ARTIST PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETING 
OF MARCH 14, 2001"; San Francisco Administrative Code Sections 9.1 13 ("CASH 
RESERVES"), 10.02 ("CASH RESERVE FUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS"), 10.03 ("EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND"), 10.100-1 
("ADMINISTRATION OF SPECIAL FUNDS"), 10.100-32 ("ART COMMISSION 
STREET ARTIST FUND"); Ordinance 51 1-84 ("CERTIFICATE FEE; FEE 
SETTING PROCEDURE"); Ordinance 383-96 ("APPLICATION/EXAMINATION 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_010902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 4 of 14 



FEE"); Proposition "K" passed by the voters of November 8, 1983 election ("...TO 
PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL CERTIFICATES AND AN INCREASE IN FEES BY 
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS"); San Francisco Charter Section 6.306 ("Cash 
Reserve Fund and Supplemental Appropriations") and 6.307 ("Emergency Reserve 
Fund"); and a letter of January 4, 2002 written by himself and his brother, Robert J. 
Clark, to the Arts Commissioners. 

In reference to the "STATEMENT MADE BY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ..." Mr. 
Clark stated that he felt the answer given by Deputy City attorney Adine Varah was 
not responding to the question which was asked. "What we were asking," he said, 
"was whether or not at the end of any current year, if any surplus that was left over, 
whether Section 10.02 required that that existing surplus at the end of the current year 
had to be carried over and counted as revenue for the following fiscal year. And what 
she answered was saying that ... they concluded that Section 10.02 did not require the 
Street Artists Program to spend all of its existing surplus ... in the current fiscal 
year ... I agree, there is no law that says that ... As has happened before, in the past, 
the question we asked was kind of distorted to imply that we were asking something 
that I considered pretty much to be a stupid question." 

Commissioner Brother Elk asked Mr. Clark if the question he had asked was whether 
the surplus had to be spent in the next fiscal year. Mr. Clark responded that he had 
asked that, if there was a surplus at the end of the current year, whether there was any 
law that requires that it carry over to the next year and whether or not it must be 
counted as revenue for the next year. 

Commissioner Stermer commented, "But not necessarily spent the next year," to 
which Mr. Clark responded: "Counted as revenue to me means spent" and to be 
considered in evaluating next year's fee. 

In response to a question by Program Director Lazar as to whether the Clarks had 
asked if it was required for the Program to spend all the money it had in order to 
lower the fee, Mr. Clark responded that what he had asked was whether the law 
required that a surplus at the end of a fiscal year carry over to the next year and, if so, 
whether the law required that it be counted as revenue for the next fiscal year. He 
went on to say that Charter Section 9.1 13 and Administrative Code Section 10.02 
"say ... that any unused balances at the close of any fiscal year, 'but exclusive of 
revenue or money required by law to be held in school, bond, bond interest, bond 
redemption, pension, trust, utility or other specific funds, or to be devoted exclusively 
to specified purposes other than annual appropriations ... shall be transferred by the 
Controller ... to a Cash Reserve Fund. 1 " Mr. Clark stated that under the new 
ordinance specifying the existence of the street artist fund, the fund was categorized 
as a special fund devoted to a specific purpose; therefore, he said, the Program's 
surplus must be retained in its fund at the end of the year. 

Commissioner Brother Elk noted that, retained exclusively for the Program's 
purposes, the surplus could not be taken by the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors. 

Mr. Clark clarified that the Board of Supervisors could borrow the Program's surplus 
temporarily with the Arts Commission's approval, but it must be returned to the 
Program with interest. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_0 1 0902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 5 of 14 



Mr. Clark, returning to Section 9.1 13, quoted: " "Such surplus shall be taken into 
account as revenue of the ensuing fiscal year.' " 

Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Clark if the essence of his question was whether, 
if the surplus is transferred to the next fiscal year, the surplus should be factored in 
with the Program's annual revenue to determine what the fee should be for that fiscal 
year. Mr. Clark affirmed that that was his question. 

Referring to the "Fee Setting Procedure" described in Ordinance 51 1-84, Mr. Clark 
stated that the Program Director has to file a report with the Controller (by April 1st) 
reflecting the anticipated costs of the Program for the ensuing year and the fee which 
would be necessary to support the costs. In addition, this law stressed that "The fee set 
shall be equal to, but not greater than, the fees necessary to support the costs of 
administering and enforcing the provisions of the Street Artist Ordinance. " 

Referring to Ordinance 383-96, which established an application/examination fee, 
Mr. Clark quoted: " 'The funds credited to the Arts Commission pursuant to this 
section, in combination with funds derived from Sections 2404.1 and 2410 of this 
ordinance, shall not exceed the actual cost to the Arts Commission of adminstering 
and enforcing Proposition "L " and this Article. ' " 

Mr. Clark read the January 4, 2002 letter which his brother, Robert Clark, and he had 
written to the Commissioners. The letter opposed the proposed fee increase for the 
folowing reasons: " '(1) The Board of Supervisors lacks the legal authority to raise 
the Street Artist Certificate fee when it is not necessary, (2) The Art Commission is 
required by law to carry over and use any surplus in the Street Artist Fund at the end 
of the fiscal year as revenue for the next fiscal year. ' " The letter placed emphasis on 
the raising of the fee only "when necessary", a phrase used in Proposition "K" of the 
November 8, 1983 election; according to the Clarks, it was not necessary to raise the 
fee for next year because " 'the Arts Commission's own records and estimates indicate 
there already is more than enough revenue in the Street Artist Fund to pay next year's 
expenses. ' " Furthermore, the provisions of Charter Section 6.306 applied to the 
creation of the present Street Artist Fund; therefore, " 'any surplus remaining at the 
end of the fiscal year shall be taken into account as revenue of the ensuing fiscal 
year. ' " This meant that " 'the surplus of $120,000 in the Art Commision 's Street Artist 
Fund must be used as revenue for the next fiscal year. ' " 

Mr. Clark stated that while he understood the reasoning and logic behind the Program 
Director's proposal to raise the fee, it was inapproppriate to divide the Program's costs 
by the number of street artists without considering usage of the surplus. He urged that 
the Commissioners ask for another clarification from the City Attorney on this issue. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that if the Commission were to follow the Program 
Director's long-range proposal, it could lead to having to return to the Board of 
Supervisors with subsequent higher annual requests and the possibility of having to 
admit that previous requested amounts were inadequate; whereas the Clarks' proposal 
"allows for no long-range planning at all." 

Program Director Lazar stated that in a meeting at the City Attorney's office he had 
asked the question of whether or not the Program was required to use up all of its 
surplus revenue with its current revenue in order to possibly lower the fee (as had 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_010902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 6 of 14 

been suggested at a previous Program Committee hearing), and the verbal response 
he had received was that the Program could, if it wished, use all of its surplus in one 
year but the Program was not mandated to do so. The City Attorney's office told him 
that the method he had been using of allowing the Program to gradually use the 
surplus to offset its annual deficits was a fiscally prudent method. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that the Arts Commission was not the forum in which 
to obtain a legal opinion on the Clarks' question. What the Commissioners were to 
approve is what they would feel appropriate to present to the Board of Supervisors, 
and it would be up to the Board to seek a legal response to the Clarks' question. He 
would urge the Clarks to present their argument to the Board and ask for a legal 
clarification. 

Mr. Clark responded that he preferred that route to seeing the Commissioners "have a 
City Attorney deputy sit here who won't give you a written opinion." 

Commissioner Stermer asked for additional comment from the public. None was 
given. 

Program Director Lazar clarified that if the Committee were to vote to recommend a 
fee increase, the recommendation would be submitted to the Commission's Executive 
Committee which would be meeting on January 15th; if approved by the Executive 
Committee, the recommendation would be submitted for approval to the full 
Commission at its meeting on February 4th. If approved, the fee increase would be 
mentioned in the Arts Commission's budget for submittal to the Mayor. In the 
meantime, the Program Director would issue a report to the Controller of next year's 
Program costs and the proposed fee. In addition he would request the City Attorney to 
draft a fee ordinance for submittal to a hearing of the Finance Committeeof the Board 
of Supervisors in the spring, in order for the new fee to be adopted at the start of the 
fiscal year, July 1st. 

Commissioner Brother Elk, complimenting the Clarks on their argument, stated that, 
in his mind, the existence of the surplus was a separate issue from the issue of the 
Commission's job of considering the fee on an annual basis. In other words, the 
. Commissioners' vote on an appropriate fee to cover the expenses should be 
independent of the existence of the surplus. 

Program Director Lazar stated that, if the surplus had not existed, the Commission, 
several years ago, would have had to commence requesting fee increases to cover the 
expenses. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that, while the balance of the surplus at the start of 
the present fiscal year was $122,000 and, to many minds, represented a sizeable 
amount of money, to factor it all for only one budget year "is probably not the way 
we want to go." 

Commissioner Anderson stated that the existence of the surplus actually detoured 
consideration of what the fee should in reality be to fully cover the expenses. 

Commissiner Brother Elk concurred and noted that the Program's budget next year 
showed a $25,000 deficit. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_01 0902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 7 of 14 



Commissioner Stermer stated that, since the surplus was projected to be depleted in 
four years and since the fee at the time fee would supposedly be sufficient to fully 
cover the budget, he felt it was appropriate for the fee to gradually address the surplus 
and that this was "responsible planning." 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that the fee setting procedure provides for an annual 
accounting which, he felt, is quite separate from the surplus issue; "we may decide to 
provide $25,000 every year for the next four years out of the surplus to bring the 
budget in line ... I really see those as two different issues." 

Program Director Lazar stated that there was a possibility, with the gradual fee 
increases and resultant increased revenue, that the surplus with its accrued interest 
may exist for a longer period of time; but, inevitably, the fee would have to stand on 
its own, without the benefit of a surplus, to fully cover the Program's expenses. 

Commissioner Stermer noted that many street artists were "working on a very small 
margin" which has not been helped by the inclement weather. If the surplus were not 
considered, the fee would have to be be raised nearly a hundred dollars more at the 
present time which, the Commissioner said, would be "immoral." 

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that Sections 10.02 and 9.1 13 "seem to mandate that 
the surplus be used to calculate next year's fee." He went on to say that the present 
$70,000 in revenue (collected July through December, 2001) added to the surplus of 
$122,000 would more than cover next year's $165,000 budget. "So in effect, 
technically, we shouldn't have to pay any fees for six months. ... We're saying we 
have to go by the law ..." He and his brother, he said, will present the same argument 
at the Board of Supervisors and "hopefully we'll have a new City Attorney that's 
going to give an honest answer. ... Our position is that if you didn't have the surplus, 
we would gladly pay whatever fee you decide is best." 

Program Director Lazar stated that he wanted to see the Commission, at the Board of 
Supervisors, "present a posture of responsibility, that this is how we've been doing it, 
the City Attorney has said that that has been fine, and that this is what we predict. If 
the City Attorney ... says 'no, you've got to factor in all of your surplus money now 
and keep the fee the way it is now', and we bottom out that surplus, then that will 
mean that next year we'll be before the Supervisors asking for a much higher fee. ... I 
wouldn't want to see us back down and not offer what I feel is a prudent course." 

Commissioner Roth moved that the request by the Program Director for an ordinance 
increasing the street artist certificate fee for fiscal year 2002-03 to $93.40 per 
quarter or $373.60 per year be approved; the motion was seconded by Commissioner 
Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE PROGRAM 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OR 

RENEWAL 

Jeffrey Shedrick - Certificate #5695 (expired November 15, 2001). Mr. Shedrick 
was not present. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_010902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 8 of 14 



Program Director Lazar chronicled Mr. Shedrick's alleged violations and the course 
of his hearing procedure with the Arts Commission: 

On August 26, 2001, it was reported that Mr. Shedrick was (1) selling in a location 
not designated by the Board of Supervisors (55 Stockton Street); and (2) Conducting 
business in an improper, disorderly, hazardous manner (parking his vehicle adjacent 
to his display in a non-parking zone and with both wheels up on the curb). The report 
of these violations was received from an observer who telephoned it to the Program 
Director the day after the incident. As a result of this report, the Program Director 
sent Mr. Shedrick a written "NOTICE OF WARNING" against continuing to violate. 

On August 30th. Mr. Shedrick and his partner, Jimmy Motley, attended a screening of 
their wares by the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners; 
the Committee members verbally warned them to adhere to all the rules of the 
Program. 

On October 3, 2001, Mr. Shedrick was reported to be allegedly committing the same 
two violations for which he had been warned against and, in addition, he was in 
violation for selling within 12 feet of a doorway (55 Stockton Street). The report of 
these violations was telephoned to the Program office on the day they were occuring. 
The next day (October 4th), the Program Director sent Mr. Shedrick a written 
"NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OR 
RENEWAL." The notice offered him an opportunity to have a public hearing with the 
Program Director to discuss the charges, and, at the hearing, if he were to agree in 
writing to comply with all the rules, the Program Director would recommend issuance 
of certificate or renewal; if he were not to agree, or not even meet with the Program 
Director, the matter would be referred to the Program Committee for action on the 
Program Director's recommendation of denial of certificate or renewal. 

Three weeks later, on October 26th, Mr. Shedrick telephoned to say that he wished to 
meet with the Program Director. The Program Director asked the Certification Clerk 
to ask him to say what days and hours he would be available to meet. Three days 
later, Mr. Shedrick returned the call and left a message stating that he would 
telephone again with possible dates on which he would be available to meet. 

On November 15th, Mr. Shedrick's certificate expired. 

By December 18th, the Program office had received no further communication from 
Mr. Shedrick. In keeping with the hearing procedures, the Program Director sent Mr. 
Shedrick a "NOTICE OF HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE 
PROGRAM DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OF 
CERTIFICATE." 

On January 8th (the day before his hearing), Mr. Shedrick telephoned the 
Certification Clerk and stated that he would attend his hearing. 

The Program Director introduced Ms. Jessica Yang of Cushman & Wakefield as a 
person who observed Mr. Shedrick in violation. Ms. Yang told the Commissioners 
that she was the associate manager of the 55 Stockton Street building. She stated that 
the Program Director's description of the alleged violations was accurate, but that she 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_010902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 9 of 14 



wanted to add a charge against Mr. Shedrick of soliciting outside his space: not only 
was his sales stand occupying an illegal space, but he was away from his stand 
"approaching my students" (of her building's fashion school) "as they would leave the 
building, to purchase his products," 

In response to questions by Commissioners Brother Elk and Stermer, the Program 
Director stated that Mr. Shedrick had been a licensed street artist for less than a year 
(March 30 - November 15), and that he had not seen Mr. Shedrick - nor received a 
report of him - selling during the winter holiday season. 

The Program Director stated that Mr. Shedrick had not only received the rules 
governing sales activities but had also received an earlier warning (August 24th) in 
reference to a report with photos submitted by the Advisory Committee of his 
allegedly (1) exceeding the display length regulation and (2) having a salesperson. 

Commissioner Brother Elk observed that Mr. Shedrick had received "multiple 
opportunities for him to get educated about what he needs to do." The Commissioner 
added that it was clear that Mr. Shedrick had committed "some serious violations." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, the Program Director stated that 
Mr. Shedrick has not re-applied for a certificate. 

Commissioner Brother Elk moved that Jeffrey Shedrick be found in violation for 
selling in a location not designated by the Board of Supervisors, for selling within 12 
feet of a doorway, and for conducting business in an improper, disorderly, hazardous 
manner (having a vehicle parked in a non-parking zone adjacent to street artist 
display), and that issuance of a certificate for Mr. Shedrick be denied; the motion was 
seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

ACTION 
3 HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO REQUEST BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS TO DESIGNATE FORMER WINTER HOLIDAY SPACES 
"Z-48", "Z-49", AND "Z-50" (STOCKTON STREET, EAST SIDE, 
O'FARRELL TO GEARY STREETS; ADJACENT TO MACY'S MENS 
STORE) AS PERMANENT, YEAR-ROUND SPACES 

The Program Director was informed that Mr. Louis Meunier, Executive Vice 
President of Macy's, had been out of town for a month and had returned only two 
days before. Because Mr. Meunier had not had sufficient time to review the request, 
the Union Square Association's executive director, Ms. Linda Mjellem, requested that 
the item be continued to the next Program Committee meeting. 

Commissioner Stermer asked that the item be continued to the next meeting. 

DISCUSSION 
4. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

The Program Director joyously informed the Commissioners that, on December 7, 
2002, Ordinance No. 234-01 was adopted. The ordinance corrects a legislative error 
made a year before which had eradicated the Arts Commission's hard-won provision 
in a previous law for interest to be credited by the Controller on any balance of funds 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_0 1 0902.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 10 of 14 

in the Street Artists Fund. With the passage of the new ordinance, the provision was 
restored; its timeliness was of extreme importance in relevance to the Program's 
usage of its surplus in covering its deficits (see the Item I discussion). 

In reference to the winter holiday selling season, the Program Director stated that, 
minutes before this meeting, he received a packet of police reports and copies of 
citations written by the officers hired by the Program to enforce the street artist 
ordinance against the unlicensed vendors in the Downtown area. He will study the 
reports and inform the Commissioners of the results at the next Program Committee 
meeting. 

The Program Director went on to say that, during the winter holiday season, he 
himself cited 1 1 street artists in violation; copies of the "cites" were sent to the 
Commissioners. In addition, the Program's Advisory Committee observed 5 street 
artists in violation; as a result of these observations, the Program Director was able to 
issue written notices of warning or, as the case may be, notices of hearing to the 
violators. 

Commissioner Stermer asked the four street artists present how the winter holiday 
season had been for them economically. Street Artist Barbara Michalak said, 
"Terrible," and that the inclement weather was a major factor. Street Artist Bill Clark 
said that "all the stores had so many sales going on." The Commissioner stated that he 
was thinking about the artists all during the season. 

Commissioner Roth asked about the police performance in apprehending the illegal 
vendors. Street Artist Bob Clark responded that "apparently, the Police Department 
allowed the non-profits to sell all Christmas long two feet from the doorway ..." and 
that he, Mr. Clark, had personally spoken to one such "non-profit" vendor who told 
him that, during the entire season, he had not been approached by the police. 

Commissioner Roth commented: "In a season of bomb threats, that's unacceptable." 

Commissioner Brother Elk asked for the names of the non-profit organizations that 
were violating the regulations. Mr. Bob Clark responded that he "couldn't tell because 
they didn't put their signs out." 

The Program Director responded that he had detected four separate displays 
exhibiting the metal wares of a former certificate-holder; one of the displays did show 
a required two-foot-by-two-foot sign which stated "Peaceful Streets" as the name of 
the organization. The Program Director went on to describe his frustration in 
enforcing the distance-from-doorway regulation against the street artists who, in their 
midst, had to tolerate the daily wintertime presence of the afforementioned "Peaceful 
Streets" vendor who, the Program Director himself photographed, was selling within 
two feet of the doorway of the Crate-n-Barrel store. At one point, the Program 
Director called a beat officer who met him at the site and moved the vendor to a 
location ten feet away from the door, after the Program Director proved the vendor's 
illegal location with a tape measure. 

The Program Director further stated that since the Crate-n-Barrel store had obviously 
not had a problem with the vendor's presence near its entrance during the entire 
season, the Program Director would consider proposing the vendor's site as a 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_01 0902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 1 1 of 14 



temporary street artist location for next year's winter holiday season, the site to be 
exempted, of course, from the artists' twelve-feet-from-a-doorway regulation. 

Commissioner Roth asked that pressure be put on the Union Square merchant 
associations - "all those Union Square people who come here and complain every 
time we try to get" street artist spaces - "to be a little more vigilant about who is in 
their doorway and to call the police." 

The Program Director stated that Executive Director Linda Mjellem of the Union 
Square Association telephoned him one day during the season to relay a complaint of 
the head security officer of the main store of Macy's who, ironically, construed one of 
the non-profit vendors as a street artist set up too close to the door. The Program 
Director, himself having observed the vendor's presence repeatedly, told Ms. Mjellem 
the name of the "non-profit" organization represented by the vendor and advised her 
to inform the security officer to call the police in such circumstances. 

The Program Director expressed dismay over "Macy's tolerating this one display" - 
which was also manned by a former street artist - "not only opposite Macy's service 
entrance, which is an entrance, but opposite the standpipes on the building ... Macy's 
wouldn't do anything; this was going on daily." 

Street Artist Barbara Michalak spoke of instances in which she herself had gone up to 
one of the vendors of the "non-profit" organizations to ask for identification, only to 
be told that the vendor was "watching" the display for someone else who had all the 
documents. Commissioner Brother Elk stated that, in such situations, the police 
should be called. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that, in prior winter holiday seasons, the police 
would always check the artists' certificates, but during the last season, no police 
officer asked him for his certificate. Referring to the $8,500 in street artist fees spent 
by the Program on the police during winter, Mr. Steneck said: "I think we got 
screwed; they disappeared, they were gone, they never came around. What's 
happened to our money?" 

The Program Director commented that, one day during the season, he informed the 
head officer, who coordinated the activities of the officers hired by the Program, of 
the presence of six flourishing illegal displays at the intersection of Market and Sutter 
Streets. Several days later, a sunny Friday afternoon when the street artists and the 
public were out in numbers, the Program Director rode a streetcar down Market Street 
from the Embarcadero to 4th Street and saw no illegal display. 

Commissioner Stermer asked for an accounting of the time spent by the officers. The 
Program Director stated that the materials he received from the police prior to the 
meeting would contain - as it had in prior years - copies of the officers' hourly 
logbooks which he would have to examine in order to make his report for the next 
meeting. 

Commissioner Roth recommended that, for next year, the staff encourage the big 
stores - even by letter - to call the police on any vendor too close to the door or 
breaking any other regulation. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_010902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 12 of 14 



DISCUSSION 
5. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

Proposal for street artist workshops 

Commissioner Stermer related a discussion held at this month's full Arts Commission 
meeting in which the commissioners were asked to set goals for the upcoming year. 
Commissioner Freebairn-Smith, he said, wanted to find some way to help the street 
artists raise the standards of their work sold on the street. The Commissioner, he said, 
"was talking about bringing the bottom quality up to match" the calibre of better 
items. Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that while there was no legal way to 
mandate quality - "as an artist, I'm glad we can't" - he considered the possibility of 
having workshops offered by street artists which could be co-funded by street artists 
taking the workshops as well as by matching funds of the Arts Commission. 

Street Artist Bill Clark responded that anything that offers people an opportunity to 
improve their craft would be worthwhile. Along the Commissioner's lines, he favored 
what he and the Program Director had talked about long ago: the creation of a website 
for the Program which could encourage artists who expend time and effort in their 
work by offering them web page recognition of their items. 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that the proposal might not be worthwhile, that is, a 
teacher street artist might one day find that "the little bit of money I make teaching 
this guy may end up hurting me in the long run" if his student takes his selling space 
and sells "what I taught him." To this, Commissioner Stermer replied that that person 
did not have to teach. 

The Commissioner went on to say that it would not be mandatory, that it would be for 
people who would want to teach and would not be afraid of competition and would 
teach the people who would "genuinely want to learn to get better." 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that he felt it was a very good idea, that there was no 
place for such street artists "to get that kind of education," and that it should not be 
too expensive to fund. 

Commissioner Stermer perceived such a training lesson to be an hour long, costing 
the student $10 to be matched by $10 from the Arts Commission; ten students would 
yield for the teacher $200. 

Mr. Clark suggested that some of the workshops be held in the Arts Commission's 
Suite 70 toward the end of the month when, typically, there are not many meetings 
scheduled. 

Commissioner Brother Elk saw an educational opportunity in making one of the 
teaching sessions a time for artists, commissioners, staff, and store merchants to get 
together with refreshments "to give people the feeling they are actually in a very 
valuable program." 

Commissioner Roth suggested that it would be beneficial if such a session, in which 
the merchants would be gathered, were to occur prior to the winter holiday selling 
season. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_010902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 13 of 14 



Commissioner Stermer asked that the mattter of Street Artists Program workshops be 
calendared for the next Program Committee agenda. 

Proposal to amend lottery procedures to allow artists to enter into lotteries names 
of artists not present at lotteries 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that under the present lottery rules, a certified street 
artist is allowed to enter only his/her own name in a lottery for an opportunity to 
obtain a selling space; he proposed that the rules be amended to allow an artist to 
enter not only his own name but the name of any other certified artist who would not 
be present at the lottery. While inclement weather, health, or other reasons could 
prevent an artist from physically coming to and participating in a lottery, the artist 
would be able to have a friend enter his/her name in his/her behalf. To be sure, the 
requirement for an artist to be present to sign in for a space (which occurs after the 
lottery) would not be changed; but it would no longer be necessary for the artist to be 
present at the lottery itself. "What we're trying to do," he said, "is make the program 
more user- friendly for everybody." 

Commissioner Stermer asked that this item be calendared for the next meeting. 

Proposal to amend lottery helpership designation procedure 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that presently the lottery procedures allowed for a 
"designated helper": at a lottery, an artist who receives one of the last four ranking 
numbers (in the pull out of artists' names) is designated as a helper for the next lottery 
and this is so designated on the artist's lottery slip. If the artist appears on the day 
he/she is assigned to the helpership, the artist must have in his/her possession the blue 
slip he/she received in order to be allowed to do the helper's job, even though the 
lottery sign-up sheet lists the artist's name as a helper. If the artist fails to present 
his/her lottery slip, the artist loses the opportunity of being a helper and being able to 
have first choice of selecting a space. Mr. Clark said that the artists and he were 
proposing that the rule be amended to allow a designated helper to fulfill his/her 
helpership without having to present his/her lottery slip, so long as the sign-up sheet 
which would indicate the artist's helpership is present. 

Commissioner Stermer asked that this item be calendared for the next meeting. 

Request for "COMMISSIONERS' COMMENT/PUBLIC COMMENT" agenda 
item 

Commissioner Brother Elk requested that, for future agendas of the Committee, there 
be an item entitled "COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT" and 
that this be separate from the existing item "PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM 
FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING 
SPACES." 

Commissioner Stermer asked that this item be listed on future agendas. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_01 0902.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | January 9, 2002 Page 14 of 14 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 

January 20, 2002 






http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam_0 1 0902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



AC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 



file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Page 3.0/saa0213C 



AC 



SAN FRANCISCO 
ARTS COMMISSION 



0.75 



^STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
Wednesday, February 13, 2002 rrr> _ o <•» 

3:00 p.m. 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



M .. 02-08-02A09:49 RCVD 

Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 

Van Ness Ave. Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 



J 



^Agenda 



ACTION 



I. HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE MOTIONS TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Gerard Devlin - Certificate # 5837. Alleged violations: (I)Having a salesperson, 12/23/01; 
(2) Selling items not of the artist's own creation and not certified by Arts Commission, 
12/23/01; (3) Selling in locations not designated by Board of Supervisors (Powell/Geary 
Streets) 12/23/01; (842 market Street) 1 1/23/01). Due to the above first two charges of 
serious violations of the street artist ordinance, Mr. Devlin was notified by the Director of 
Cultural affairs and the Street Artists Program Director that the issuance or renewal of his 
certificate was withheld pending a decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on 
whether to issue or renew the certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of 12/23/01 monitoring notes of the Advisory Committee of Street Artists 
and Craftsmen Examiners, and copies of 1 1/23/01 Police citation issued to Mr. Devlin were provided to the 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee ; copies of these - with Mr. Devlin's address deleted - 
may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the 
hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

Paula Grundman - Certificate #5795. Alleged violations: (1) Selling items not of the 



1/30/02 9:06 AN 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Page 3.0/saa 

artist's own creation, 12/8/01, 12/23/01; (2) Refusing to show street artist certificate and 
lottery slip for space, 12/23/01 ; (3) Selling in a location not designated by Board of 
Supervisors (55 Stockton Street), 12/24/01; (4) Obstructing the duty and performance of 
Arts Commission staff members, 1/18 - 21/02. Due to the above first and fourth charges of 
serious violations of the street artist ordinance, Ms. Grundman was notified by the Director 
of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program Director that the issuance or renewal of 
her certificate was withheld pending a decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on 
whether to issue or renew the certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of 12/8/01 and 12/23/01 monitoring notes and photos by Advisory 
Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners, copies of pages 2 and 4 of 12/24/01 "Inspector's 
Logbook" and photos taken by Program Director, and copies of 1/24/02 letter from Program Director to Ms. 
Grundman were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of these - 
with Ms. Grundman's address deleted - may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 
Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

Kan Wen Chong - Certificate #5777. Alleged violation: Selling items not of the artist's 
own creation, 12/19/01. Due to the above charge of serious violation of the street artist 
ordinance, Mr. Chong was notified by the Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists 
Program Director that the issuance or renewal of his certificate was withheld pending a 
decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the 
certificate. 

(In reference to this item, copies of page 4 of 12/19/01 "Inspector's Logbook" were provided to the 
Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the 
Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.) 

ACTION 
II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO REQUEST BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
TO DESIGNATE FORMER WINTER HOLIDAY STREET ARTIST SPACES 
"Z-48", "Z-49", AND "Z-50 M (STOCKTON STREET, EAST SIDE, OFARRELL TO 
GEARY STREETS; ADJACENT TO MACY'S MEN'S STORE) AS PERMANENT, 
YEAR-ROUND SPACES 

This proposal was introduced by Street Artists Bill and Bob Clark at the Street Artists 
Committee meeting of November 14, 2001, as a measure to replace three spaces on 
Stockton Street, west side, O 'Farrell to Ellis Streets, scheduled to be eradicated in the 
spring of 2002 by the creation of an adjacent bus zone. 

(In reference to this item, copies of a 1/28/02 letter from the Program Director to Mr. Louis Meunier, 
Executive Vice President, Macy's, were provided to the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program 
Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness 
Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 

DISCUSSION 
III. HEARING TO REVIEW PERFORMANCE OF THREE-DAYS-A-WEEK 
LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES AT PT. LOBOS 

On May 7, 2001, the full Arts Commission approved the elimination of a daily lotteiy for 
street artist spaces at Pt. Lobos ("Cliff House spaces ") and replaced it with a 
three-days-a-week lottery system to be held at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and 
Saturday. 



2 of 4 1 50/02 9.-01 



'AC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Page 3.0/saa0213C 



(In reference to this item, copies of an 1 1/1/01 FAXed letter by Street Artist Xavier LeBon were provided to 
the Commissioners of the Street Artists Program Committee; copies of this may be obtained by the public at 
the Street Artists Program office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 60, during the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.) 

ACTION 

IV. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDING LOTTERY 
PROCEDURES TO ALLOW ARTISTS TO ENTER INTO LOTTERIES NAMES OF 
ARTISTS NOT PRESENT AT LOTTERIES 

At the January 9, 2001 meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee, this item was 
submitted by Street Artist Bill Clark who also clarified that the proposal would not 
eliminate the requirement for an artist to be present to sign in for a space. 

ACTION 

V. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDING LOTTERY 
HELPERSHIP DESIGNATION PROCEDURE 

At the January 9, 2001 meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee, this item was 
submitted by Street Artist Bill Clark as a measure to allow for a designated helper to fulfill 
his/her helpership without having to present his/her lottery slip if the sign-up sheet 
indicating the artist's helpership is present. 

DISCUSSION 
VI. HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH STREET ARTIST WORKSHOPS 

At the January 9, 2001 meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee, Chairman Dugald 
Stermer proposed as a goal for the Arts Commission the possibility of street artists offering 
workshops to other street artists to help raise the standards of their work sold on the street, 
and the possibility of such workshops being co-funded by street artists and matching funds 
of the Arts Commission. 

DISCUSSION 
VII. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
VIII COMMISSIONERS' COMMENT/PUBLIC COMMENT 

DISCUSSION 
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
X. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



1/30/02 9:06 Al 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to 
the needs of persons with disabilities. 

Full Commission meetings and individual Committee meetings of the Arts Commission will 
be held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Van Ness Avenue 
and Oak Street. Unless another site is specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement 
level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including persons in wheelchairs, will be 
available. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings at 25 Van Ness Avenue: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI lines serving the 25 Van Ness Avenue building 
are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, there are 
the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses, the F Line streetcars, 
and the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro station, at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Streets, one half block from the building. Also, serving the Van Ness/Market vicinity 
are the #9 San Bruno and #26 Valencia buses. 

There is accessible curbside parking on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 



American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available 
upon request at meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma of the Community Arts and Education 
Program at (415) 252-2596 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored 
if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the 
people and that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of 
the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1 Dr. 
Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102; by telephone at (415) 554- 
7724; by fax at (415) 554-5163; or by e-mail at Donna_Hall @ ci.sf.ca.us. Citizens interested 
in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on 
the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us. 






C 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 



Page 1 of 20 




iAN FRANCISCO 

AMISSION 



-STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, February 13, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2581. 

^Minutes 
Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Rod Freebairn-Smith, Denise Roth 



Commissioners Absent: Kirk Anderson, Andrew Brother Elk 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk; Officer Carl Payne, S.F.P.D. 



In attendance were street artists Kan Wen Chong, Bill Clark, Bob Clark, Barbara Bihusyak, 
Yurih Bihusyak, Abby Ellis, Paula Grundman, Sharon MacDougall, Susan Pete, Barry 
Prager, Edward Steneck, Catherine Zhang; also in attendance was Emmett McLean 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:14 p.m. and clarified that, 
due to the length of the agenda, public testimony would be limited to three minutes per 
person. 

ACTION 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 2 of 20 



I. HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE MOTIONS TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Gerard Devlin - Certificate # 5831. Alleged violations: (1) Having a salesperson, 
12/23/01; (2) Selling items not of the artist's own creation and not certified by Arts 
Commission, 12/23/01; (3) Selling in locations not designated by Board of 
Supervisors (Powell/Geary Streets 12/23/01; (842 Market Street) 11/23/01). Due to 
the above first two charges of serious violations of the street artist ordinance, Mr. 
Devlin was notified by the Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program 
Director that the issuance or renewal of his certificate was withheld pending a 
decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the 
certificate. 

Program Director Lazar referred the Commissioners to Mr. Devlin's January 23rd 
letter requesting a postponement of his hearing due to his inability to be present at 
today's hearing. The Program Director reported that he had granted the postponement 
with the clarification that should Mr. Devlin's certificate expire prior to the date of his 
requested Committee meeting, his certificate would not be renewed until issuance of 
the notice of the Committee's decision, if so, to renew. 

Paula Grundman - Certificate #5795. Alleged violations: (1) Selling items not of 
the artist's own creation, 12/8/01, 12/23/01; (2) Refusing to show street artist 
certificate and lottery slip for space, 12/23/01; (3) Selling in a location not designated 
by Board of Supervisors (55 Stockton Street), 12/24/01; (4) Obstructing the duty and 
performance of Arts Commission staff members, 1/18 - 21/02. Due to the above first 
and fourth charges of serious violations of the street artist ordinance, Ms. Grundman 
was notified by the Director of Cultural Affairs and the Street Artists Program 
Director that the issuance or renewal of her certificate was withheld pending a 
decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to issue or renew the 
certificate. 

Program Director Lazar stated that, on the advice of the City Attorney, the staff was 
withdrawing the charge of obstructing the duty of the staff people and was relying 
solely on the other three charges of violations in calculating disciplinary action. 

With respect to the charge of selling items not of the artist's own creation, the 
Program Director reported that Ms. Grundman's wares were examined by the 
Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners in September, 2001; 
the Advisory Committee approved her to sell beadcraft based on her samples of 
beaded bracelets. At the time, she had attempted to include with her samples metal 
American flag pendants and red-white-and-blue ribbon clusters, but the Advisory 
Committee had refused to approve her to sell such items as they had not been created 
nor significantly altered in form by Ms. Grundman. 

Nevertheless, on October 26th, the Program Director observed her selling not only the 
pendants and ribbons but also rings. Because Ms. Grundman was a new certificate- 
holder, the Program Director told her that he did not want to issue her a notice of 
hearing with the Program Committee, nor did he wish to issue her a written warning; 
instead, he chose to give her a verbal warning. On that date she was also, he said, in 
an illegal location: opposite the entrance area of the Crate-n-Barrel store on Stockton 
Street at O'Farrell Street. He showed her the adjacent legal street artist spaces painted 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 3 of 20 



on the sidewalk and helped her move her display into one of the spaces on the 
O'Farrell side of the building. 

On November 28th, the Program Director was obliged to send Ms. Grunfinan a 
written warning for selling in locations not designated by the Board of Supervisors, 
based on telephone reports received about her alleged selling in illegal locations on 
the corner of O'Farrell and Stockton Streets. 

On December 8th, the Advisory Committee, on monitoring duty, took photographs of 
Ms. Grundman's display which, in addition to beadcraft, was offering for sale metal 
American flag pendants and metal heart-shaped pendants on chains - clearly 
manufactured, the Program Director asserted, "and clearly not approved" by the 
Advisory Committee. In addition, bracelets of beads with wire-mesh appeared in one 
of the photographs; it was questionable as to whether Ms. Grundman made these. The 
Program Director submitted the photographs as evidence to the Commissioners for 
examination. 

On December 23rd, Advisory Committee Chairman Mathew Porkola was on 
monitoring duty by himself and noted two things about Ms. Grundman's selling 
activities: according to his notes (submitted by the Program Director as evidence to 
the Commissioners), (1) "Her display again consisted largely of obvious imports" and 
(2) "She refused to show me either her lottery slip or her license, despite repeated 
requests." The Program Director clarified that the street artist ordinance mandates that 
a street artist's license (certificate) be on display at all times while the artist is offering 
his/her wares for sale. This indeed was the reason for the Program office issuing two 
copies of a license to each artist so that the artist carries one to show at the lotteries 
for space selection and keeps the other affixed for public view to his/her display. The 
public is not required to ask to see the permit; if, inadvertently, the license is not on 
display and someone does ask to see it, the artist should not hesitate to produce it. 

On December 24th, the Program Director was on monitoring duty and photographed 
Ms. Grundman and her display set up in an illegal location and opposite 55 Stockton 
Street, the building which houses the Crate-n-Barrel and Fossil stores. (The photos 
were submitted as evidence to the Commissioners.) The Program Director clarified 
that the photos depicted Ms. Grundman south of three street artist spaces and opposite 
the entrance to the Fossil store. The photos also showed an unlicensed female vendor 
south of, and next to, Ms. Grundman. At his request, Ms. Grundman and the illegal 
vendor removed their displays. The Program Director stated that what made the 
violation most acute was the time of the year: Christmas eve and the preponderance 
of pedestrians on the sidewalk and going in and out of the doorway. 

In response to a question from Commissioner Stermer, the Program Director stated 
that the Fossil store did not contact the Street Artists Program about Ms. Grundman. 
The Program Director went on to say that the Program had problems with the 
presence of illegal vendors on the Stockton Street side of the building, and problems 
with one "charitable solicitor" who chose to violate the charitable solicitors ordinance 
by setting up opposite the entrance of Crate-n-Barrel: on one occasion, the Program 
Director and Officer Carl Payne had to move the "charitable" away from the entrance. 

The Program Director stated that many times Ms. Grundman had protested to the staff 
that if she had only received the Program's handbook, she would have understood the 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam021302.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 4 of 20 



rules. The handbook had been out of print for a year and a half; budget and staff time 
constraints had not allowed for the printing of an updated new edition. Nevertheless, 
Ms. Grundman, as all new certificate-holders in the past year and a half, received a 
reprint of 75 pages of the book - in fact, the most pertinent chapters of the book 
showing the maps of the spaces, the procedures for applying for and obtaining a 
license, the screening guidelines on arts and crafts followed by the Advisory 
Committee screening of applicants' wares - the screening discussion and the other 
pages, he said, reiterated the main purpose of the street artist ordinance, that street 
artists prove that they sell only what they make themselves - the procedures for 
obtaining legal spaces in the artists' lottery and occupying legal spaces, and the 
requirement that an artist's license be on display. With respect to the Program's three 
charges of violation against Ms. Grundman, he said, the rules that she violated were 
clearly stated in the material given her. (The 75 pages were submitted as evidence to 
the Commissioners.) 

Advisory Committee Chairman Mathew Porkola identified the photos taken of Ms. 
Grundman's display on December 8th as the photos he had taken when Advisory 
Committee member Susan Tibbon and he had observed the display. Mr. Porkola, 
examining the photos, identified "the commercial pendants and the dog tags with the 
American flag" as "items definitely not approved at her" [Ms. Grundman's] 
"screening" of wares for a street artist license. Mr. Porkola affirmed that his 
committee had talked to Ms. Grundman about these items at her screening. 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Porkola whether, in his opinion, the items were 
"industrially manufactured," whether "they looked like they're the work of some 
craftsman." 

Mr. Porkola replied that someone had manufactured "the stamped out metal pieces," 
but the main point was that Ms. Grundman had not been approved to sell them. 

In continuing to examine the photos, Mr. Porkola identified "small bead and wire- 
type mesh" bracelets on Ms. Grundman's table; he stated that he had seen many such 
items in Berkeley and in import shops and that they were "nothing at all like what she 
was screened for." 

Advisory Committee member Susan Tibbon identified the photos as those taken of 
Ms. Grundman's display on December 8th. In addition, Ms. Tibbon stated that she 
had just returned from Manhattan and had seen vendors in various areas of Manhattan 
selling what appeared to be the same metal dog tag flag pendants as had been offered 
for sale by Ms. Grundman. 

The Program Director submitted as evidence a page from a catalogue of a business 
called "Gallerie 21" which depicted, in color, bead and wire-mesh bracelets and 
necklaces. 

Mr. Porkola stated that the "Gallerie 21" items represented "wire and bead work" 
which was "pretty much what we saw on" Ms. Grundman's "table." He added that 
Ms. Tibbon and he spoke to Ms. Grundman about the items not being at all what she 
had been screened for and approved to sell, and that she would have to show the 
Advisory Committee that she made them in order to be licensed to sell them. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 5 of 20 



Commissioner Stermer verified with Mr. Porkola that he had informed Ms. 
Grundman that she could have an opportunity to be screened to add the items to the 
wares she could sell. 

With regard to Ms. Grundman's alleged refusal to show her certificate to him on 
December 23rd, Mr. Porkola stated that because it had been the winter holiday selling 
season, the Program Director had asked the Advisory Committee to not only examine 
the wares being sold by the artists but to verify the artists' locations. Mr. Porkola 
asked to see Ms. Grundman's lottery slip to verify that she was occupying the space to 
which she had been assigned. She refused to show a lottery slip; he then asked to see 
her license so that he could report her identity in his monitoring notes. She refused to 
show it "and said that I should do whatever I needed to do" to report the matter. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer as to whether most artists display 
their licenses, Mr. Porkola stated that on some days "everybody has them out; other 
days, half do, half don't." He clarified that if his committee members ask, the artists 
produce their licenses. 

Ms. Grundman stated that she was screened to sell beadcraft and knew "very little" 
about the Street Artists Program. She admitted receiving the handbook material ("that 
small thing"). "Basically, I was selling things that I made." She said that she had 
asked whether she should bring any of her items to the Program Committee meeting 
today and had been told that it would not be necessary because it had already been 
verified that she could string beads. She said she was buying silver-plated crystals 
which she strings on dental floss whose ends are tied. "That's what the whole thing 
was. If anybody had bothered to pick them up and look at them," their composition 
would have been understood. "As far as the other things that they're saying," Ms. 
Grundman stated, "that are on a wire mesh, they're not. They're all on a piece of 
elastic ... which you buy wholesale." She went on to say that she bought crystals 
wholesale from Los Angeles, from three suppliers; and she would "go out to the street 
every day and work." 

She went on to say that she had asked for the Program's handbook many times, she 
went to the Business Improvement office many times, but they refused to let her read 
it without, she said, "clearance first. So basically I was just asking people 'How does 
your system work? Is this space good?' I was getting not reliable information. ... 
Particularly, just before Christmastime, I was working every day, and I was trying 
very hard to understand your program; and it wasn't until I started going to the lottery, 
when the Clark brothers helped me. They would answer my questions. They would 
show me a copy of the book, let me read it. They actually told me what people to stay 
away from. They just generally helped me along. I was very upset the entire four 
months that I had your license, so much so that in the past two and a half months I 
haven't worked. So basically what this guy said happened that day, did not happen 
like that at all. My space in the lottery I thought was 'O'Farrell-8'. I had bronchitis 
'cause it was raining a lot at that time, and I went around the corner - no, that was the 
other incident." 

In response to the Program Director's request that she address the incident relative to 
her alleged refusal to show her license, Ms. Grundman stated that Mr. Porkola "did 
not identify himself as an inspector ... so a guy came around with a notebook, and he 
said 'Let me see your lottery ticket', and I said 'And you are?' and he said 'I'm from the 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 6 of 20 



Arts Commission.' And I said 'Show me identification as to who you are, and I will 
show you my license.' I didn't have it on display because ... I've had licenses in other 
cities, this is what I've gone through twenty-five years, and they're different 
procedures, different rules in different cities, and mostly I understood wearing it 
around the neck, and putting it out on the table means somebody could steal it, it 
could get lost in the confusion; so I've never displayed my license. So since he didn't 
identify himself as to who he was, he did not pick up and examine my stuff; he 
picked up something, he laughed, and he said 'Where did you get this from?' and 
threw it down and walked away." 

Commissioner Stermer asked Ms. Grundman how Mr. Porkola was able to take the 
pictures. She affirmed that "they did take pictures." She went on to say that as far as 
her items being " 'obvious imports', they're not: I made every single one of these 
things. I work very hard until four o'clock in the morning." She identified her items as 
crystals, cultured pearls, and the findings made of plastic. 

Commissioner Stermer asked her if she was screened for making these items, to 
which she responded: "Not specifically; but I sat there and I did have some Skorsky 
crystals, but not specifically these things, not at all." 

Commissioner Stermer asked her whether she understood that the major issue before 
the Program Committee dealt with an artist's making things. She said she understood. 
The Commissioner stated that "the issue here in front of us is that you have not been 
screened for making these, so at this point it's not whether or not you could make 
them, or did make them, but that you had not been authorized to sell them yet." 

Ms. Grundman stated that "as far as the rhinestone things, no, I was not screened for 
that. I'm sorry. I started gluing rhinestones on things. ..." 

Program Director Lazar stated that he understood that Ms. Grundman was referring to 
the rhinestone and metal dog tag American flags. 

To this, Ms. Grundman stated: "The flags - if it were any other thing, I would 
apologize ... but the flags ..." She further stated: "I was warned, too; Howard came 
out ... It was just such a great demand for it, people kept asking me, and I kept saying 
'No, I can't sell it, I can't sell it ...' I dumped it all; I don't even buy anymore ... Yeah, 
in that respect, I was warned about it." 

With respect to her selling in front of 55 Stockton Street, Ms. Grundman stated that 
she "was there once. I had bronchitis, and my lottery space was around the corner; it 
was warmer" by 55 Stockton Street. She explained that she went to the management 
office to apologize and say that she was "there once, and they said they had issues." 

Regarding her refusal to show her license, Commissioner Stermer clarified to Ms. 
Grundman that whether or not Mr. Porkola identified himself was not the issue; 
"you're supposed to show it to whomever asks." 

Commissioner Roth clarified to Ms. Grundman that the one who so requests "can be a 
person, a patron, a future customer, anyone who asks you." 

Commissioner Stermer advised Ms. Grundman to show her license upon request. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 7 of 20 



Ms. Grundman responded: "As far as this other woman, the inspector ... she did come 
around the following Saturday or Sunday, she came up to me with a pad in her hand, 
ready to catch me in a lot of violations ... She smiled and she said 'Have a good 
holiday season.' She didn't catch me." 

Ms. Grundman stated that she was sorry if she broke the rules; "I did try very hard, ... 
but your lottery system takes a lot to understand" and it would be beneficial to have 
"reliable people helping you along." She stated: "And I won't break your rules 
anymore, now that I know what they are." 

Advisory Committee Chairman Mathew Porkola stated that on December 8th "Ms. 
Grundman did spend quite a bit of time talking to" Ms. Tibbon and him about street 
artist issues; therefore, she knew his identity on December 23rd when she refused to 
show her license. 

Commissioner Stermer asked Program Director Lazar for a recommendation. 

The Program Director responded that, should the Commissioners find Ms. Grundman 
in violation with respect to the charges, and should they consider penalties, he 
recommended that they impose the Arts Commission's standard penalty for the 
violation of selling items not of the artist's own creation or for selling items not 
certified by the Commission, the standard penalty for selling in a location not 
designated by the Board of Supervisors, and a warning against continuing to refuse to 
display the certificate. (The standard penalty for a first finding of selling items not of 
the artist's own creation or for selling items not certified by the Arts Commission is a 
two-month suspension of certificate; the standard penalty for a first finding of selling 
in a location not designated by the Board of Supervisors is a three-week suspension; 
there is no standard penalty for refusing to show the certificate.) At any rate, the 
Program Director recommended that the Commissioners approve renewal of Ms. 
Grundman's certificate. 

In response to questions by Commissioner Roth, the Program Director stated that Ms. 
Grundman, while serving a suspension, would still be eligibile to apply for and attend 
a screening of new items she would intend to sell; however, she could not sell at all as 
a street artist during her suspension. Should she be found doing so, the Commission 
has the authority to impose its standard penalty for such violation of a one-year 
suspension. The Program Director further clarified that the Commission always has 
the authority to mitigate or increase its standard penalties; it can also make a 
suspension period more "meaningful" by dividing it so that part of it falls during a 
critical selling season, as summer or the winter holiday season; but this was not his 
recommendation in the present case. 

The Program Director added that if an artist is interested in serving a suspension 
immediately before a better selling season commences, the artist has the opportunity 
of waiving his/her right of appeal to the Board of Appeals so that the suspension 
starts immediately rather than in the allotted fifteen days for filing an appeal. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Freebairn- Smith, the Program Director 
stated that this was the first time the Commissioners have held a hearing with Ms. 
Grundman. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam021302.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 8 of 20 



Commissioner Stermer noted that, while it was the first time the Commissioners were 
considering Ms. Grundman's charges, there were a number of violations - a number of 
violations in which she was "pleading ignorance." 

Commissioner Roth expressed that she was "dismayed that this happened especially 
in an area that we fought, and are still fighting, the war for spaces in Union Square; to 
find somebody selling in an illegal space, given the hard time that we've had." 

Commissioner Stermer clarified that the issue at the moment, from his perspective, 
was not whether the items in question on Ms. Grundman's table were handmade by 
her or not; the issue was whether Ms. Grundman had been screened for them and 
approved to sell them. Verification of whether she created the items could be deferred 
to the Advisory Committee should she choose to apply for a screening of the items. 
The Commissioner went on to say that, should his committee adopt the Program 
Director's recommendation, he would encourage Ms. Grundman to request to serve 
the suspension immediately so that she would be able to take advantage of the 
summer selling season. 

The Program Director stated that, in order to do so, Ms. Grundman would have to 
submit a letter to the Program office waiving her right of appeal to the Board of 
Appeals and requesting that the suspension commence immediately. 

Ms. Grundman left the hearing room. 

At this point, Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak stated that she witnessed Ms. Grundman 
on December 24th "selling Gucci wallets right in front of Macy's" and that she has 
repeatedly called the police on other artists. Ms. Bihusyak asked that the 
Commissioners make a motion to make Ms. Grundman stop calling the police on the 
artists. 

The Program Director clarified that the issue of Ms. Grundman's alleged telephoning 
the police on the artists was not on the Program Committee's agenda. 

Street Artist Abby Ellis stated that she has been in the Program since its beginning 
and that "we all, I'm sure, at different times struggled with the temptation to sell what 
we do not make; it would make a person's life easier, but it also cheapens and 
demoralizes the whole Program; it creates factions; it just basically endangers the 
position of the street artists, and it's against the well being of this whole Program." 

Commissioner Roth moved that Paula Grundman be found in violation of the street 
artist ordinance by selling items not certified by the Arts Commission, refusing to 
display her street artist certificate, and selling in a location not designated by the 
Board of Supervisors; that her certificate be suspended for a period of two months 
and three weeks for selling items not certified by the Arts Commission and for selling 
in a location not designated by the Board of Supervisors, respectively; that she be 
issued a warning against refusing to display her certificate; and that her certificate 
be renewed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith and 
unanimously approved. 

Ms. Grundman returned and tossed her street artist certificate onto the table in front 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 9 of 20 



of the Director of Cultural Affairs and the Program Director. 

2. Kan Wen Chong - Certificate #5777. Alleged violation: Selling items not of the 
artist's own creation, 12/19/01. Due to the above charge of serious violation of the 
street artist ordinance, Mr. Chong was notified by the Director of Cultural Affairs and 
the Street Artists Program Director that the issuance or renewal of his certificate was 
withheld pending a decision by the Street Artists Program Committee on whether to 
issue or renew the certificate. 

Program Director Lazar reported that on December 19th he was on Market Street, 
between 4th and 5th Streets, checking the displays of the street artists, when he 
observed who he believed to be Kan Wen Chong allegedly selling items not certified 
by the Arts Commission and, the Program Director felt, not of Mr. Chong's own 
creation: gold-plated jewelry - money clips, tie tacks, bracelets. East of Mr. Chong 
was an unlicensed display of wool scarves and hats (the illegal vendor not present); 
west of Mr. Chong were four licensed street artists. While the Program Director did 
not have his camera at the time, he recorded these details in his logbook. Mr. Chong, 
he said, was sitting to the side of his table, his legs and arms crossed, and he refused 
to answer or to look at the Program Director when he asked him: "What's this?" 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, the Program Director stated that 
Mr. Chong, upon receiving the notice that his certificate was withheld, telephoned the 
Program office and said that the Program Director was mistaken, that he, Mr. Chong, 
had not been selling at all during the winter holiday season but had been working at a 
regular job. 

The Program Director reported that he asked the street artist who had been set up 
closest to Mr. Chong on that day to verify Mr. Chong's identity, but that artist told the 
Program Director that he could not be certain of it. 

Mr. Chong told the Commissioners that he was never selling jewelry, that he was 
licensed to sell only digital photography, and that he informed the office that he had 
not been selling during the holiday season but working in a Chinese restaurant. He 
said he had to take care of his entire family. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, the Program Director stated that on 
the day in question he was convinced it was Mr. Chong but did not ask to see his 
certificate. However, in light of the fact that Mr. Chong appeared to protest, and that 
the Program could not produce either a witness or a photograph of the incident, the 
Program Director recommended that the charge against Mr. Chong be dismissed due 
to a lack of preponderance of evidence. 

Commissioner Roth moved that the charge against Kan Wen Chong of selling items 
not of the artist's own creation be dismissed due to a lack of preponderance of 
evidence; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith and 
unanimously approved. 

ACTION 

3. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO REQUEST BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS TO DESIGNATE FORMER WINTER HOLIDAY STREET 
ARTIST SPACES "Z-48", "Z-49", AND "Z-50" (STOCKTON STREET, EAST 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 10 of 20 



SIDE, O'FARRELL TO GEARY STREETS; ADJACENT TO MACYS MENS 
STORE) AS PERMANENT, YEAR-ROUND SPACES 

The Commissioners acknowledged that this proposal was introduced by Street Artists 
Bill and Bob Clark at the Street Artists Committee meeting of November 14, 2001, as 
a measure to replace three spaces on Stockton Street, west side, O'Farrell to Ellis 
Streets, scheduled to be eradicated in the spring of 2002 by the creation of an adjacent 
bus zone. 

Program Director Lazar stated that he wrote to Mr. Louis Meunier, Executive Vice 
President of Macy's, about the proposal, informing him that two of the three spaces 
had been designated as temporary winter holiday spaces for each of the past twenty 
years. At Mr. Meunier's request, he drew a map showing the distances of the spaces 
from the Men's Store entrance, and Mr. Meunier responded that his store would not 
object to the two spaces becoming permanent but would object to the third, "Z-48", 
because its proximity to crowd congestion caused by the adjacent outdoor cafe would 
further restrict the sidewalk's pedestrian passageway. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that he was "willing to accept that as an alternative" to 
losing the three spaces down the street. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he was "very happy" with the proposal. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that the Board of Supervisors be requested to 
designate former winter holiday street artist spaces "Z-49" and "Z-50" (Stockton 
Street, east side, O'Farrell to Geary Streets) as permanent, year-round spaces; the 
motion was seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

Commissioner Stermer asked that the Program Director thank Mr. Meunier on behalf 
of the Commissioners for his consideration of the matter. 

DISCUSSION 

HEARING TO REVIEW PERFORMANCE OF THREE-DAYS-A-WEEK 

LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES AT PT. LOBOS 

The Commissioners reviewed that on May 7, 2001 the full Arts Commission 
approved the elimination of a daily lottery for the three street artist spaces at Pt. 
Lobos ("Cliff House spaces") and replaced it with a three-days-a-week lottery system 
to be held at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. 

Program Director Lazar reported that he had received a letter from Street Artist 
Xavier LeBon requesting a review of the performance of the new lottery system. The 
Program office notified Mr. LeBon of this item on the agenda; but Mr. LeBon was 
not present. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, the Program Director stated that 
Mr. LeBon was the only person to ask for the review. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck read a statement prepared by Street Artist Sharon 
MacDougall in support of keeping the new lottery system. The statement cited 
beneficial aspects of no longer having to arise at 6 a.m. to drive to the "Cliff House 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 1 1 of 20 



Lottery" every day; of now being able to work at Pt. Lobos "with consistency"; of 
now having six, rather than three, chances to work. 

Mr. Steneck stated that whereas Mr. LeBon lives very close to Pt. Lobos and a daily 
lottery, therefore, is convenient for him, it is not convenient for Ms. MacDougall and 
Mr. Steneck who have to spend at least a half hour to get to the area. 

ACTION 
5. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDING 
LOTTERY PROCEDURES TO ALLOW ARTISTS TO ENTER INTO 
LOTTERIES NAMES OF ARTISTS NOT PRESENT AT LOTTERIES 

The Program Director explained that, presently, the only artists who are allowed to 
enter their names into the lotteries for spaces are those who are present at the lotteries, 
with the exception of any street artist who requests the Program Director to direct the 
Lottery Committee to allow another artist to enter the artist's name on his/her behalf 
due to his/her inability to appear for medical reasons. The proposal to allow artists to 
enter into lotteries the names of artists not present was submitted at the January 9, 
2002 meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee by Street Artist Bill Clark who 
clarified that the proposal would not eliminate the requirement for an artist to be 
present to sign in for a space. 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that what he was proposing was to allow any artist to 
put another artist's name into a lottery. Presently, on a typical Saturday, everyone 
shows up at the lottery to get a number pertinent for the entire lottery period; the 
artists have to be present in order to get their numbers. If an artist fails to appear for 
any reason - health condition, flat tire - the artist is, in effect, put "at the end of the 
line" for spaces. If an artist shows up one minute late for the lottery, the artist misses 
the opportunity of putting his/her name in. 

Mr. Clark went on to say that the Commissioners at the last meeting had discussed 
the need to consider upgrading the quality of the Street Artists Program; in keeping 
with this, there are many artists who do quality work and who must spend long hours 
in their studios to build up their stock; therefore, instead of having to leave their 
studios on a Saturday morning to attend the lottery, the proposal would allow them to 
remain in their studios and to request a friend or a lottery worker put their name in the 
lottery. The next day such artists would show up with the numbers their 
representatives obtained for them and would then be able to use the numbers to obtain 
spaces. 

Presently, in order to obtain their numbers, the artists have to be at the lottery before 9 
a.m. and therefore "never get to sleep late." During the summer months, Mr. Clark 
said, he himself has to be at the lottery for three days during the week just to "to see 
what my number is. I lose a lot of work time in my workshop." 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Clark if he foresaw the advent of "ad hoc carpools" 
whereby one artist would submit the names of four or five others, and whether he 
perceived a possible "downside" resulting from the proposal. 

Mr. Clark responded that he did not see a "downside" and that if he were to put in the 
names of fifteen artists, for example, he would be doing the same job as the lottery 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam021 302.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 12 of 20 



helper's job. He went on to say that the Downtown Lottery occurs on Friday, and 
many people, for one reason or another, are unable to come to that lottery; therefore, 
they are excluded from getting a choice of spaces on Saturday and Sunday, "which is 
the downside for a lot of people." With his proposal, if twenty people, for example, 
were to not show up at the lottery but allow their names to be entered for them, it is 
possible that they could receive lower numbers than those received by the artists 
present at the lottery; and because the twenty would not be present to sign in for 
prime spaces, the artists present would be able to select the prime spaces that day. 

Mr. Clark acknowledged Saturday as the "main selling day for most people"; 
therefore, the more people who do not show up on Saturday (i.e., the ones who were 
present at the lottery on Friday and were able to obtain prime selling spaces on 
Friday), "the better it is for all the people who want to sell on Saturday." (The ones 
who sold on Friday would most likely sell on Sunday.) Similarly, if artists wish to sell 
Downtown on Saturday, the only way they can get a good opportunity for a prime 
space "is to have to make the trip" to the lottery "on Friday to do that." 

Mr. Clark discussed the impact of adverse weather on the current lottery 
requirements: When it rains on Saturday, artists - many of whom live out of town - 
have to drive in the rain to the lottery just to try to get a space for the next day (when 
hopefully it would not be raining). 

In conclusion, Mr. Clark stated: "Personally, I feel the Program should be as user- 
friendly for everybody in the Program. ... We should do things to try and make life 
easier for each other ..." 

Program Director Lazar ascertained from Mr. Clark that the proposal would allow for 
an artist to ask another artist to put his/her name in the lottery every day; and it would 
allow an artist to put in ten, twenty, or more names into a lottery. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck expressed opposition to the proposal by quoting: " 'If it 
ain't broke, don't fix it.' " He went on to read a statement by his family unit member 
Sharon MacDougall which expressed the view that allowing artists to enter the names 
of other artists who are not present at the lottery "will completely change the principle 
of the lottery. ... If you want to work, you come to the lottery. ... Everyone is 
responsible for entering themself into the lottery. This is what keeps the lottery in 
manageable and realistic size. If anyone can enter anyone, the lottery will become 
inflated with many people who aren't really interested in working. It will become 
much larger and cumbersome, clogged up with extra lottery slips. It will no longer be 
possible to know where you stand on the second day." Mr. Steneck stated that what 
Ms. MacDougall meant by that is that if 150 names entered the lottery, and one artist 
was the 140th name to be pulled out of the box, there would be no reason for him to 
come on Sunday because he will never be able to get a good space since "a lot of 
those people who are being put in the lottery we suspect - don't know for a fact - may 
not even show up on Sunday." With the current requirements, however, "we know 
what our position is the second day generally." 

Street Artist Abby Ellis stated she had participated in the Wharf Lottery twenty-eight 
years ago; she does not go now because she cannot get to the lottery on Fridays. 
Nevertheless, the reason she came to the meeting was because she felt that "this kind 
of rule" (the proposal) "breaks down the structure of the whole interconnected 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 13 of 20 



coherency of the Program. I believe it leads to cronyism, and it's detrimental to the 
street artists." She added that it would be better to re-design the entire structure of the 
lottery system. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer as to whether the proposal would 
help her, Ms. Ellis replied that "it wouldn't even matter." 

In response to a request by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith to "develop the idea of 
cronyism," Ms. Ellis replied that the proposal would not benefit those artists who do 
not have friends; "you would have to make people like you to get your number put in. 
You shouldn't have to do that. ... That is not how taking a chance to get something 
should be. ... It leads to ill feeling, it leads to all kinds of stuff that is against the 
whole spirit of just being a craftsperson making your craft and selling it." 

Street Artist Susan Pete stated her daughter was ready to obtain a street artist license, 
but because she is in high school during the time the lottery is held, she would be 
unable to get a good space Downtown. Mr. Clark's proposal would benefit her 
daughter - who would not have to miss class to attend a lottery - as well as herself. 
Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak stated that last December was "a perfect example: it 
rained seventeen to twenty days; we all had to get up to go to the lottery, knowing we 
wouldn't be able to set up (to sell)." She said the proposal "would benefit us." She 
added that an artist does not have to make friends in order to be in the lottery; the 
artist can attend the lottery him/herself every day. 

Street Artist Barry "Lefty" Prager said he felt the proposal was "a bad idea, and part 
of the reason is it's been a written rule that the people who are determined and want to 
sell will go down, put their name into the lottery, and take their chances." On a 
Tuesday lottery, there might be 30 people who attend, and an artist would know that 
he/she would be able to sell on Tuesday, as well as on Wednesday; the artist would 
see which artists were present and this would help the artist decide when to use 
his/her number to obtain a space. If, on the other hand, there were several artists each 
putting in the names of many others, "how can you tell who shows up and how that 
will help you?" The people whom the proposal would help, he said, would be family 
unit members. In addition, he said, there would be people who would have their 
names put in on their behalf but would have no intention of selling. The proposal, he 
said, "won't benefit anybody." 

Street Artist Bob Clark stated that if just three artists each put in the names of fifteen 
people in a Saturday lottery, forty-five people would not be there on Saturday. He 
went on to say that the commissioners' interest in seeing improvement in the quality 
of the Program would involve "work and time and effort in the workshop to produce 
that.," but there was a group of artists who do not have to spend such time and effort 
in their workshop - for example, "funsketchers" - "who can make it to every single 
lottery. They don't care if everybody else comes or not; they'd just as soon make it as 
difficult as possible because they're producing their art on the streets seven days a 
week or they're having it produced by somebody else and they get out there with a ton 
of stock and they can take advantage of every single lottery." He explained that on 
Thursday, a great number of artists enter the lottery and take a number and holds it to 
obtain a space on Friday. "On Friday, guess who gets to pick all the good numbers 
again before anybody comes along who couldn't make it to the Thursday lottery: it's 
the people who were there on Thursday. So in effect, it monopolizes both Thursday 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 14 of 20 



and Friday in the present system." 

Mr. Clark went on to say that because the Saturday lottery attracts about 150 artists, 
half of the artists choose all the prime spaces in the lottery, while the other half (with 
poor numbers), having made the effort to show up but "don't really want to sell here," 
wind up inhabiting the less desirable spaces. If the proposal were adopted, artists who 
"don't really want to be there on Saturday" and "really want to sell on Sunday" could 
simply have a friend put their names into the lottery, "and then" these artists "aren't 
there on Saturday competing with the rest of us." Mr. Clark added that the same 
reasons the artists favor the Cliff House Lottery "are the same reasons that this system 
is going to produce; it's going to allow people to have a life." 

Street Artist Abby Ellis stated that she was still against the proposal for the reasons 
stated by Mr. Steneck and Ms. MacDougall and for her own, but if the Commission 
was going to adopt it, she urged that the system be computerized "so that every single 
artist in the whole program can put their name in." 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that he has been a street artist in the Program for thirty 
years and that he was "the person who started this whole thing ... But I am amazed 
that here we are pleading with you to make one simple change ..." He urged the 
commissioners to consider adopting the proposal on a six-month basis." Responding 
to the charge of "cronyism," he stated that the artists at the Wharf "have worked very, 
very hard to work out problems at the Wharf where we don't have cronyism, and 
there are situations that occur" which are handled constructively by the artists. "I 
resent the charge that because some of us are going to try to help other craftspeople, 
who have difficulty in getting" to the lottery, "that that rises to the level of cronyism. I 
see it as being humane to each other." 

Commissioner Stermer clarified that the comment heard was that "it arises a potential 
for cronyism." 

Commissioner Roth stated that she was not comfortable about making a decision on 
the proposal at this time. She requested the Chairman to continue the item to the 
following month in order to allow the commissioners an opportunity to meet with the 
Program Director at a lottery and to observe its procedures. 

Commissioner Stermer, addressing the artists, stated that he saw the Street Artists 
Program "as a way" the artists "make a living - this isn't a hobby for you ... and I'm 
deeply aware of that fact, sitting on this Commission and also being a working 
illustrator myself. This has never been a hobby for me - I've raised families on it; you 
raise families on it, too." He stated that the item would be continued for a month to 
allow time for the commissioners "to educate ourselves" about the proposal. 

Thanking Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Clark stated that he felt the proposal was "very 
relevant to the survival of the craftspeople in this program." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked that, in the interim, the artists "mentally 
troubleshoot" the proposal "further ... until we meet again, because we have 
considerable respect for particularly this group and their opinions, and I sense there's 
a gut feeling here that there could be some abuse resulting from this." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 






SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 15 of 20 



Street Artist Bob Clark stated that other artists refused to speak with the Clarks about 
the issue. 

Commissioner Stermer urged the artists to set aside their "momentary inability to 
converse on this" and discuss the proposal intelligently. He asked that the artists 
return the following month with "concerted arguments" for and against the proposal, 
and not arguments based on "personality." 

Commissioner Freebaim-Smith observed that the limited number of selling spaces for 
the artists was "a scarce resource" which, traditionally in American business, is 
"something you try to manipulate ... Cronyism is sometimes translated as 
monopolizing a limited resource. And that's what I'd be a little fearful of " with the 
proposal. He asked that the artists and commissioners think through this problem 
before adopting the proposal. 

ACTION 

6. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDING 
LOTTERY HELPERSHIP DESIGNATION PROCEDURE 

The Commissioners reviewed that the item was submitted at the Program Committee 
meeting of January 9, 2002 by Street Artist Bill Clark as a measure to allow for a 
designated helper to fulfill his/her helpership without having to present his/her lottery 
slip if the sign-up sheet indicating the artist's helpership is present. (Under the present 
rule, if the artist forgets to bring his/her lottery slip designating helpership, the artist 
is denied the job even if the sign-up sheet indicating the artist's helpership is present.) 

Street Artist Edward Steneck endorsed the proposal as "a wonderful idea" and it was 
"about time" that it was presented. 

Commissioner Freebaim-Smith moved that the lottery helpership procedure be 
amended to allow a designated helper to fulfill his/her helpership without having to 
present his/her lottery slip if the sign-up sheet indicating the artist's helpership is 
present; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

DISCUSSION 

7. HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH STREET ARTIST 
WORKSHOPS 

The Commisisioners reviewed that, at the meeting of January 9, 2002, Chairman 
Stermer proposed as a goal for the Arts Commission the possibility of street artists 
offering workshops to other street artists to help raise the standards of their work sold 
on the street, and the possibility of such workshops being co-funded by street artists 
and matching funds of the Arts Commission. 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that the Commission was prohibited by 
mandate from judging the quality of street artist arts and crafts; the Commission was 
restricted to verifying whether the items were predominantly created or significantly 
altered by the artist. Nevertheless, the Commissioner stated that he head heard street 
artists and commissioners alike express the view that "improving the quality of work 
would benefit everyone" - the artists, the artists' customers, and the commissioners in 
"fulfilling part of our role as Arts Commissioners. Even though we can't dictate 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam021302.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 16 of 20 



quality ... we can certainly encourage it more than we have." If workshops were given 
by street artists to other street artists who pay for them, with matching funds from the 
Arts Commission, it might be a step in improving the quality level of the arts and 
crafts. 

Street Artist Barry "Lefty" Prager identified himself as a photographer, illustrator, 
and sculptor whose purpose selling on the streets was to make money. The activity 
was analagous to "a fishing expedition: the person with the best work catches the 
most fish. ... I would no sooner tell" a competing street artist "to get better than 
challenge a San Francisco taxicab. I don't want him better; I want him in a weaker 
position." 

Street Artist Sharon MacDougall stated that she felt the quality of arts and crafts sold 
on the streets was good. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that he discussed the proposal with several other 
artists, and that the overwhelming response to it was "over my dead body"; according 
to Mr. Steneck, "They wouldn't help anyone else ... help them to become a 
competitor." 

Street Artist Abby Ellis stated that business was very difficult at the present time, and 
that she would "hate to see somebody show somebody how to do what I had to learn 
over so many years ... It is a business; it's not the same as just self-expression or 
art ..." Ms. Ellis went on to say that she herself was an artist, a writer, a classical 
composer, a jazz musician ... a nationally published poet, and at this time I'm not even 
sure that the quality of art is significant." She was "very much so" against the 
proposal. 

Street Artist Susan Pete stated that her fellow street artist Harlan Simon was in favor 
of the proposal. Ms. Pete questioned whether the proposal would be implemented by 
a committee. 

Commissioner Stermer responded that in order to implement it at all, the proposal 
should have the support or consensus of the street artists. Acknowledging the 
disapproval thus far espressed, the Commissioner stated that he was pleased that 
teachers of architecture, graphic design, interior design, illustration did not feel the 
same way; he himself was "a working illustrator" whose "dream is to get twenty 
potential competitors out there next semester who will then push me to do better 
work ... I'm not afraid of them at all." 

Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak stated that she perceived the Street Artists Program as 
a group of artists of different styles. She herself has experienced at the Wharf twenty 
artists trying to copy her photographic style. The Program's artists of different 
countries "bring their own flavor of how they see things." She asked the 
commissioners to not "force" the artists "to teach somebody how I think, how I see." 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that if workshops were offered to the Program's 
artists by artists from the outside, there might be a positive response. He himself 
would take advantage of such an opportunity to learn. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that in his profession of architecture he had 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam021302.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 17 of 20 



"heroes" and he "would go in a minute to hear my heroes talk about the thing that I 
do. It elevates my whole sense of what I do. And I thought this was essentially ... an 
outside program where your heroes would appear - great silversmiths" for example - 
"in a sort of seminar session" and "reveal to that audience some other techniques they 
may not even be aware of, or describe their personal experience in getting to the level 
work they're doing through a technique that they may not be familiar with ... to 
intrigue, to excite your imagination about your craft." he went on to say that his own 
profession required that he participate in a certain amount of hours of such learning 
every year, or the architects would face obsolescence. He himself was also an 
illustrator who had learned a great deal from others on how to draw. With respect to 
the proposal for the street artists, the Commissioner stated that "this didn't strike me 
as threatening at all. I'm fascinated that the competitive money-earning aspect of it is 
that powerful in this situation." 

Mr. Ernmett McLean stated that compensation was a strong motive: "If you're a 
professor and you have a constant paycheck, your perspective is different than if 
you're out there trying to sell something." 

Commissioner Stermer disagreed with the statement by saying that he chairs the 
Department of Illustration at California College of Arts and Crafts, "and my stipend - 
which is what it is - for chairing the department is less than a fifth of my income ... 
That isn't why I do it. And I would quit tomorrow if it wasn't enjoyable." The 
Commissioner observed that the issue he was hearing was that the street artists "guard 
their techniques very jealously," but the Commissioner's "problem with that is 
techniques never made an artist." He again stated that unless their were a consensus 
among the artists to pursue the proposal, it was a dead issue for which no further 
testimony was required. 

DISCUSSION 

REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar reported that on the activities of the police officers of the 
Special Law Enforcement Services hired by the Street Artists Program to enforce the 
street artist ordinance during the past winter holiday selling season. While the 
Program received copies of the citations and incident reports from the assignment, it 
did not receive copies of the officers' route logbooks (as it had in previous years); 
therefore, it was unable to determine the streets on which the officers patrolled hour 
by hour. A total of 623 illegal, manufactured items (sweaters, hats, gloves, scarves, 
sunglasses) were confiscated by the officers. To be sure, some of the officers 
confiscated merchandise at Fisherman's Wharf; this would have been admirable for 
the summer assignment, but it was against the Program's request for winter which 
was that the officers be restricted to the Downtown area. For confiscating and 
transporting the illegal merchandise, the Program Director congratulated the police 
initiative in using unmarked cars, rather than a police van, as a highly effective 
measure against signaling police presence to the illegal vendors. For the next 
enforcement assignment, the Program Director recommended that he personally meet 
with the officers beforehand for a sharing of understanding of the assignment's 
parameters (including monitoring new locations of illegal vending that have replaced 
some well known places), difficulties that may be encountered in confiscation and 
transport, and proposed solutions; this, the Program Director stated, was heartily 
endorsed by the S.L.E.S. coordinating sergeant. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam021302.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 18 of 20 



In terms of dollars and cents, the Program Director reported that the wintertime 
assignment cost the Program $8,432 (in street artist fees) paid to the Police 
Department. This figure divided by 623 confiscated items made for a cost per item of 
$13.53. In terms of relevance, the Program Director recently asked an unlicensed 
vendor for the prices of the merchandise he was illegally offering for sale and was 
told that the scarves were selling for $13 and $15 and the sweaters for $35. These 
were items, as during the winter holiday season, that were in direct competition with 
the items of the licensed street artists and items in the stores. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith commented that the presence of that enforcement 
"has a rippling effect" - if the officers were not present, there might have been many 
more illegal items being sold. 

Mr. Lazar agreed that this was an unmeasureable factor of the success of the 
assignment. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck noted that 623 items confiscated were a fraction of the 
boxloads of illegal merchandise that many of the illegal vendors have at their tables. 
Mr. Steneck asked for the number of citations and arrests made during the 
assignment. 

Mr. Lazar clarified that the Program does not authorize the officers to make arrests; 
there were 54 citations. 

Commissioner Roth stated that, with the assignment, the Downtown department 
stores "have something to be gained by our services." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that the Program "should be in partnership with the 

stores" for such assignments. 

The Program Director responded that, while his Program "has been carrying the brunt 

of " the cost of such assignments for the past ten years, he wanted to see the 

assignments continue. Because of the annual increases in the police costs, he 

expressed the view that a sharing of the costs with the stores would be greatly 

appreciated. 

Commissioner Stermer asked that the Program Director send a letter-request for such 
assistance to Union Square Association. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Newirth recommended that the Union Square Business 
Improvement District also be approached with the request. 

DISCUSSION 
9. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 
PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

Mr. Emmett McLean spoke on behalf of Street Artist Catherine Zhang, a portrait 
artist who works at Hallidie Plaza. Ms. Zhang, he said, was suffering from the smell 
of the incense being burned by another street artist, Roy Parker - it makes her so sick, 
he said, that she cannot work. Ms. Zhang spoke to the Program Director about it, and 
Mr. Parker reluctantly stopped burning the inrense the day the Program Director 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 19 of 20 



asked him to do so but would not refrain from burning it at a later time. 

Mr. McLean stressed that "what Catherine does here is her livelihood ... we need to 
take some kind of action; we're not exactly sure what that action ought to be. In a 
way, we're asking for your help and asking what our options are." 

Program Director Lazar stated that when he spoke with both Ms. Zhang and Mr. 
Parker, he had observed that their displays were about sixty feet apart; Mr. Parker did 
stop burning the stick of incense at the Program Director's request but would not 
guarantee that he would continue to refrain from burning it; he was not displaying 
incense for sale which, had he done so, would have jeopardized his street artist 
certificate. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, the Program Director stated that 
he did not know whether the burning of incense in a street artist location - which is a 
public location - is illegal. If Ms. Zhang had been set up next to Mr. Parker, there 
might have been the possibility that the Program could levy a charge of conducting 
business in a disorderly, hazardous, and improper manner against Mr. Parker - but 
City Attorney clarification might be required as to whether the Arts Commission had 
the authority to impose such a charge in this particular matter. 

The Program Director posed a similar question which would require City Attorney 
clarification: While smoking a cigarette in an outdoor public place is not illegal, 
would the Commission have the authority to suspend or revoke a street artist's 
certificate if the artist's smoking was complained about, for health reasons, by an 
adjacent street artist? 

Ms. Zhang stated that one day she set up 150 feet away from Street Artist Al Gamarra 
who was set up in space "HP-1"; after she used a fixative spray on one of her pastel 
portraits, Mr. Gamarra approached her and told her to refrain from continuing to do 
so because the spray is carried by the wind. 

The Program Director stated that Ms. Zhang's complaint was reminiscent of an 
ongoing problem the street artists on Jefferson Street were having with unlicensed 
spraypaint artists who do their work across the street from the street artists; when the 
artists and the Program staff complained, both the Environmental Protection Agency 
and the Health Department refrained from curbing the spraypainters because it was 
noted that the spraypainters were a good distance away from the street artists which 
mitigated the potential harm of the spraypaint fumes, regardless of the wind blowing 
the fumes across the street. The potent smell of the spraypaint had to be borne every 
day of summer by the street artists, some of whom stated repeatedly that it made them 
sick. Mr. Lazar recommended that Ms. Zhang and Mr. McLean contact the EPA and 
the Public Health Department: if either or both agencies determine that the odor of the 
incense is harmful, that would give the Arts Commission - subject to the clarification 
of the City Attorney - the authority to suspend or revoke Mr. Parker's certificate for 
continued burning of the incense. 

Mr. McLean asked whether the staff and commissioners were "missing out on your 
own mission to kind of support the arts" by not making Mr. Parker cease his activity. 
He went on to describe the photos of babies and children brought to Ms. Zhang from 
which to make portraits, as well as the on-spot portraits she makes of tourists. "By not 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam021302.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | February 13, 2002 Page 20 of 20 



being able to take an action, you're saying, okay, from the point of view of our 
management it's more important that we let this guy ... burn the incense than it is to 
add this resource ... that you can be proud of having ..." 

Street Artist Abby Ellis stated that she has had life-threatening migraines, almost 
causing her death, "and incense is one of the things that triggers it." She suggested 
that a committee be established to arbitrate the situation between Ms. Zhang and Mr. 
Parker. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that there is redress for this issue at the EPA. He went 
on to say that while the Commission was hearing one side of the argument, Mr. 
Parker could possibly say that he was just as good an artist as Ms. Zhang, " 'I'm just 
as important to the Program as she is', ... and we get into this quality debate which I 
don't think we're allowed to do." The Commissioner also noted that street artists have 
the ability to move to other spaces. 

Ms. Zhang stated that she has to sell at Hallidie Plaza, that if she were to move, she 
would lose "a lot of business." She asked Mr. Parker to please not burn the incense so 
that she could make money and pay her rent. 

Commissioner Stermer suggested that Mr. McLean, advocating for Ms. Zhang, obtain 
a medical report to show the EPA as an issue of the burning of incense endangering 
the health of a particular person, to assist the EPA (or other similar agency) in 
determining whether the incense is hazardous. 

Commissioner Stermer adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. 

Rspectfully submitted: 

Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee [ Meetings Index ] 

February 27, 2002 






http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam02 1 302.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



3-75, 



SlF. 



A C 



SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
:ctor or Cultural Affairs 



NOTICE 



PROGRAMS 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Iultural Equity Grants ■ 

Suite 60 'v 

The meeting of the STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 

Civic Art Collection -i-n/ri 

street artists licenses scheduled for Wednesday, March 13, 2002 has been cancelled. 

Suite 70 V 

o° van n°e» G av L E nuI The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 

4is.554.608o scheduled for Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 



7thecity.sfsu.edu/sfac/ 
.: sfac@thecity.sfsu.edu 



Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 
March 6, 2002 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 




City and County of 
San Franci'Sco 



MAR 1 2 2C22 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



03-12-02A1 :39 RCVD 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



SFA 



f 



; Program Committee | April 10, 2002 
/ 



771 SAN FRANCISCO 
Xc" ARTS COMMISSION 



file.7//C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Page 3.0/saa040102 



■ 






70.75 
p 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS DEP 
Wednesday, April 10, 2002 ^ „ ^^ 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



T 



3:00 p.m. 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



04-08-02A10: :CVD 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 



Agenda 



ACTION 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDING LOTTERY 
PROCEDURES TO ALLOW ARTISTS TO ENTER INTO LOTTERIES NAMES OF 
ARTISTS NOT PRESENT AT LOTTERIES (continued from 2/13/02 meeting) 

At the January 9, 2002 meeting of the Street Artists Committee, this item was submitted by 
Street Artist Bill Clark who also clarified that the proposal would not eliminate the 
requirement for an artist to be present to sign in for a space. 

DISCUSSION 
II REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

(This item is to allow the Program Director to report on recent Street Artists Program activities and make 
announcements.) 

DISCUSSION 
IE. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENT/PUBLIC COMMENT 

DISCUSSION 
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPEN FORUM FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION OF 



4/1/02 10:19 AM 



JFAC I Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Claris Home Pa 

PROPOSALS FOR NEW SELLING SPACES 

ACTION 
V. ADJOURNMENT (requires motion and public comment) 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
April 1,2002 



4/1/02 10:19.1 



SFA 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 
Americans with Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to 
the needs of persons with disabilities. 

Full Commission meetings and individual Committee meetings of the Arts Commission will 
be held at 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Van Ness Avenue 
and Oak Street. Unless another site is specified, meetings are held in Suite 70, basement 
level, and can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including persons in wheelchairs, will be 
available. 

For full Commission or Committee meetings at 25 Van Ness Avenue: 

Accessible BART station, MUNI lines, and accessible curbside parking: 

The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, located at the intersection of Grove, 
Hyde, and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI lines serving the 25 Van Ness Avenue building 
are the #10 Townsend, #47 Van Ness, and #49 Van Ness/Mission buses; in addition, there are 
the #6 Parnassus, #7 Haight, #66 Quintara, #71 Haight/Noriega buses, the F Line streetcars, 
and the J, K, L, M, N trains stopping at the MUNI Metro station, at Van Ness Avenue and 
Market Streets, one half block from the building. Also, serving the Van Ness/Market vicinity 
are the #9 San Bruno and #26 Valencia buses. 

There is accessible curbside parking on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 



American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available 
upon request at meetings. Please contact Liz Lerma of the Community Arts and Education 
Program at (415) 252-2596 at least 72 hours prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored 
if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the 
people and that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of 
the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1 Dr. 
Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102; by telephone at (415) 554- 
7724; by fax at (415) 554-5163; or by e-mail at Donna_Hall @ ci.sf.ca.us. Citizens interested 
in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or on 
the City's website @ www.ci.sf.ca.us. 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 



Page 1 of 16 




-i\rvi .3 v_v7lVu\ 



^STREET ARTISTS COAAMITTEE 
Wednesday, April 10, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the 
item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the 
meeting room of any person (s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other 
similar sound producing electronic devices. 

^Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Kirk Anderson, Andrew Brother Elk, Rod 
Freebairn- Smith, Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: None 

Staff Present: Howard Lazar, Street Artists Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, 
Certification Clerk 



In attendance were street artists Maria Hillius, Luis Gervasi, Matt Summers, Edward 
Steneck, Sharon MacDougall, Madeline Marrow, Beth Anderson, James Billy, Julia Zhang, 
Jimmy Sha, Bill Clark, Bob Clark, Albina Pietrzak, Barbara Bihusyak, Yuriy Bihusyak, 
Ching Sun, Steve Kogan, David Campos, Brian Hopper, Jose da Silva, Michael Johnson, 
Oscar Bevilacqua, Barry Lefty Prager, Nancy Pearlman, Susan Pete, Gloria Kasek, Marco 
Kasek, Chrys Camperlino, Julio Bonilla 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 2 of 16 • 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. and asked for a 
report by the Program Director. 

DISCUSSION 

I. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 



Program Director Lazar reported that, due to the recent fire at the Haslett Warehouse 
which is being renovated into a hotel, barricades were placed in the streets 
surrounding the building, which closed off vehicular traffic on two of the streets and 
eliminated twenty-eight prime street artist spaces - twenty-eight of the most viable 
spaces for the artists at the Wharf. 

In addition, on Grant Avenue, Geary to Sutter, for the past two years, ongoing 
construction and/or retrofitting of buildings as well as pipe construction in the street 
have seriously reduced the viability of Grant Avenue street artist spaces and, in some 
instances as currently in front of Shreve's, have eliminated prime spaces. 

Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak added to the report that the current renovation of the 
Neiman Marcus entrance has temporarily eradicated the artists' first prime space on 
Geary Street at Stockton Street. Street Artist James Billy also reported that 
Timberland on Grant Avenue will be closing for retrofitting which signals the 
possible temporary loss of five prime spaces adjacent to the building. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he would like to see the Board of Supervisors 
entertain a motion to replace street artist spaces for the duration of their non-use due 
to adjacent construction, retrofitting, etc. Mr. Lazar responded that while the Board 
has sometimes done this in previous situations (at the request of the Arts 
Commission), the best of the currently "lost" twenty-eight spaces at the Wharf are 
under the jurisdiction of the Port Commission which has demonstrated reluctance, if 
not refusal, in replacing street artist spaces with other spaces on the Port's property. 

The Program Director further reported that, in keeping with the chairman's request of 
the last meeting, the Program Director in the past month encouraged street artists - as 
a group at their lotteries and personally at their selling locations - to discuss among 
themselves the major item listed on this meeting's agenda and to attend the meeting 
and speak on the issue. To the artists, he conveyed the Program Committee's 
expressed interest that the item be represented not just by a few artists but by 
coalitions of artists for and against it. While today, weather-wise, was a pleasant day 
for the artists in which to sell, the Program Director was pleased to see a good 
attendance. 

ACTION 

2. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDING 
LOTTERY PROCEDURES TO ALLOW ARTISTS TO ENTER INTO 
LOTTERIES NAMES OF ARTISTS NOT PRESENT AT LOTTERIES 

(continued from 2/13/02 meeting) 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 1 1 /26/2003 






SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 3 of 16 



Commissioner Stermer reiterated the explanation on the agenda which stated that the 
item had been submitted by Street Artist Bill Clark who had clarified that his 
proposal would not eliminate the requirement for an artist to be present to sign in for 
a space. 

The Commissioner stated that testimony would be limited to two minutes per person 
and limited to non-repetitive statements, viewpoints, and arguments. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck submitted a petition of 103 signatures of "current, 
working street artists who wish to keep the lottery as it is now" and "do not want to 
change" it "for a number of reasons." Mr. Steneck went on to describe the outside- 
San Francisco travel distances of some of the artists who signed the petition - some 
who live in Half Moon Bay, the East Bay, Novato, Petaluma, even one who lives a 
hundred miles away. While artists against the proposal had expressed concern that it 
would benefit family units by making it convenient for a unit member to submit 
another member's name in the lottery, Mr. Steneck stated that many of the signatures 
on his petition opposing the proposal were of family unit artists. Mr. Steneck went on 
to say that his petition contained names representing a wide spectrum of arts and 
crafts: portraits, beadcraft, fine jewelry, photography, leathercraft, ceramics - "a broad 
representation," he said, "of the working group that's out there now." 

Mr. Steneck stated that out of the 390 certificateholders in the Program, the last two 
Saturdays - encompassing the Easter vacation visitors period - "we had more than we 
would normally have" in the lottery, roughly 142 artists. "These are the people who 
work on a regular basis." 

Commissioner Stermer asked Street Artist Bill Clark, one of the authors of the 
proposal, if he wished to address the issue. Mr. Clark responded by requesting to 
reserve his comments after everyone opposing the proposal had an opportunity to 
speak. 



Commissioner Stermer requested to hear first from all artists opposing the proposal, 
then from those supporting it, and clarified that debates between the artists would not 
be tolerated. 



Street Artist Matt Summers requested that the Commissioners consider the proposal 
in terms of whether it satisfies as a "case of fairness and legality." With respect to the 
weekend lotteries, approximately sixty artists attend the Friday lottery, and at least 
half of these people attend for the sole purpose of using their lottery slip to obtain a 
space for Saturday which "is a better selling day." On Saturday there are about 185 
artists attending the lottery. For the sixty artists of the Friday lottery, "every name in 
that lottery bucket is affected by every other name": the odds, he said, for each artist 
is 60 to 1 . But if, for example, twenty names of artists who are not present were added 
to that, there would now be 80 to 1 odds, which "is more disadvantageous to you than 
it was before." On the following day, "people who weren't there to earn their spot will 
beat you out ... because everyone in this lottery is in competition with everybody else 
for a selling space." He summed up by saying that it was "not fair to raise 60-to-l 
odds to 80-to-l odds just because people want to put their friends in." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam041002003.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 4 of 16 



Mr. Summers' second point was a question of the legality of the proposal. Ever since 
the lotteries started twenty- five years ago, he said, there has been a rule that if an 
artist entered another artist's name in the lottery, "it was considered illegal and 
rightfully so because" the artist would be "increasing the odds"; it would be 
tantamount to an artist entering his own name twice "which would be "obviously 
unfair" in that it would be "another person who is going to usurp your spot." Mr. 
Summers urged the Commissioners to not approve "this unfair proposal to jeopardize 
the lottery." 

Street Artist Maria Hillius stated that she opposed the proposal because when a street 
artist obtains a license, the artist "should be responsible to be there" (at the lottery) "to 
get" a "space", and there should be "no privilege for others." 

Street Artist Beth Anderson stated that her opposition to the proposal was for two 
reasons: Firstly, going to the lottery "is part of your job"; and, secondly, "because of 
my physical limitation, I am there at the Wharf between seven and seven-thirty" (two 
hours before the lottery) "to get a parking spot" close to where she will be selling; "if 
I'm participating in the lottery by being there at seven o'clock, I don't feel that 
somebody else can also participate in the lottery while they're sleeping." 



Street Artist Madeline Marrow stated that her opposition was out of consideration of 
the current loss of selling spaces and the upcoming summer selling season: if the 
proposal were to be approved, "the lottery would be increased with people putting in" 
the names of "people from out of town, all over the place; there's going to be a strong 
possibility a lot of people are not using their spot for an entire weekend ..." If the 
lottery were to attract over 200 names "like it has in the past," she said, artists will not 
be able to work at all." 

Street Artist Steve Kogan stated that he opposed the proposal because "it opens up the 
possibility of scamming." For example, if Mr. Kogan were to ask a friend to put his 
name into the lottery, and the friend failed to do so, Mr. Kogan would, under the 
present lottery procedures governing misplaced or lost lottery slips, receive the 
middle number designated with the letter "A" or "B" with respect to the number of 
participants in the lottery. For example, if there were seventy participants in the 
lottery, Mr. Kogan would receive the number "34- A" as his place in line, following 
the thirty-fourth artist and preceding the thirty- fifth artist, in which to choose a space. 
The "scamming" would occur by virtue of the proposal opening "the door to a lot of 
people missing this as a way of gaining a middle number" by claiming that their 
names were put in by other artists when, in truth, they were not. 



Street Artist Susan Pete stated that the proposal would "skewer" the helper rule and 
would "actually benefit larger" family units. 

Street Artist Jim Billy stated his opposition by saying that "if people are too lazy to 
get out of bed, they shouldn't get a number." He went on to say that "sometimes I 
don't want to get up, and then I just come down at noon and take whatever's left over; 
I don't expect anyone to save me a spot." He went on to say that the proposal could 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 5 of 16 



promote "scamming" by making it possible for artists to collect money from other 
artists who wish to have their names put in the lottery for them: "They could make 
money off of this." 

Street Artist Barry Lefty Prager stated that he opposed the proposal because it "will 
institutionalize the process so even in January on a Tuesday there will be 1 1 5 people 
that will enter the lottery hoping that they'll become a helper or that there will be 
some statistical advantage for them. When we go down to the lottery in the morning, 
there's a subtle little chess game that goes on: we know who's there, what craft they're 
selling; if you listen carefully, you know which number they have ... so you can 
determine whether you want to use your number on a Tuesday" or other days. ... If 
there's 115 people, yet potentially only the Clark brothers and myself are standing 
there, there's no way for me to tell whether to use my number on Tuesday or 
Wednesday." 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Prager if he meant that "the kind of interpersonal 
politics that goes on would be skewed because a number of the number-holders 
would not be present." 

Mr. Prager responded that "it would definitely be weighted to the second day." He 
went on to say that artists, without their presence, will have their names entered into 
the lottery because it would not cost them anything "and they could potentially be 
helper on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday." If such persons were to be penalized for 
not using their numbers to obtain spaces, the numbers of these people would 
diminish; "but as long as it doesn't cost them anything, then they'll continue to abuse 
it." 

Street Artist Michael Johnson based his opposition to the proposal on the way the 
lottery system "was set up now" as "very egalitarian ... very democratic ... very fair". 
He stated that he is able to tell his customers three things about the Street Artists 
Program: "You make your art, you sell your art, and you go to the lottery and have an 
even chance of getting a spot." The proposal, he said, would "skew" the system in 
that artists who have friends would be able to have their names submitted into the 
lottery by their friends, and this would be a disadvantage over artists "who don't have 
compatriots to put their name in." 

Mr. Johnson went on to say that there exists competition between himself and the 
artists with whom he is friendly, "and I'm not going to impose on them" by not being 
present at the lottery "and take from them their chances of having that spot." 

Street Artist and Lottery Committee member Jimmy Sha stated that selling as a street 
artist is his full-time job seven days a week. He opposed the proposal because, if it 
were approved, he would be receiving incessant phone calls from artists, waking him 
and demanding that he put their names into the lottery. "I have to sleep," he stated; "I 
don't want anybody to call me. I don't have enough time" to be "like a secretary." He 
went on to say that, because he is a Lottery Committee member, his cell phone 
number has been made available; if the proposal were passed, he would incur charges 
on his cell phone due to the volume of artists' calls he would receive. 

Commissioner Roth commented that since Mr. Sha would not be obligated to put 
anyone's name into the lottery, the solution for him would be to gain a reputation as 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam041002003.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 6 of 16 



someone who would not put anyone's name in. 

Mr. Sha further stated that the proposal "would open the door for a lot of mistakes" 
regarding artists claiming they had their names submitted for them and they were not, 
duplicate names being put into the lottery, etc. 

Commissioner Stermer thanked the speakers thus far for being brief, to-the-point, and 
non-repetitive. 

Street Artist Brian Hopper stated that ever since the first time he heard of the 
proposal, he has thought it would be better to "go all the way" and get a computer to 
lotterize the spaces; rather than adopt the proposal, he urged the Commissioners to get 
a computer for the lottery. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck read a statement of opposition: " 'The reason for the 
lottery in the first place is to assign the spaces in a fair and just way. Since there are 
not enough of the best spaces to go around, having to go to the lottery and enter your 
own name is a perfect combination of effort and random draw.' " Mr. Steneck stated 
that other points he had intended to make had already been stated by previous 
speakers. 

There being no further testimony in opposition, Commissioner Stermer requested to 
hear from persons in support of the proposal. 

In support of it, Street Artist Bill Clark pointed out that the 103 people who signed 
the petition against the proposal were 103 people who would not avail themselves of 
the proposed rule, and therefore this disputes the notion that there would be a great 
number of people phoning others to put their names into the lottery. 

In response to Mr. Steneck's earlier statement that the proposal would benefit family 
units, Mr. Clark stated "the exact opposite would be true; this will benefit single 
people more than it" would benefit a "family unit." He explained that presently two- 
member "family units are forced to go into the lottery, they throw both names into a 
lottery, since they're both there, they take the lowest number and sign in on the day of 
the lottery. Therefore they have an advantage over single people as to having a better 
opportunity to get a space on the day of the lottery." However, "under the new 
proposal, if anybody puts any names in, the number of people who show up at the 
lottery on the first day is going to be smaller than it is right now." As an example, if 
Mr. Clark were to put his brother's name into the lottery and his brother received 
number 10 (in rank) in the pullout of names, and Mr. Clark himself received number 
110, Mr. Clark could not use his brother's number to sign in for a space because his 
brother is not present. On this day, the first day, Mr. Clark can only use his own 
number. "Therefore" the proposal "opens up more opportunity on the first day of 
every lottery for higher numbers to get access to prime spaces." 

In reference to Street Artist Matt Summers' statement that the legality of the proposal 
was questionable, Mr. Clark responded that the ordinance which created the lottery 
gives the Arts Commission the authority to establish the lottery for the artists, to 
create, he said, any system which would lotterize the assignment of the selling spaces, 
including the present one which the Commission "arbitrarily" adopted long ago. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 7 of 16 



With regard to the statement made by Street Artist Maria Hillius, Mr. Clark stated 
that "a systematic exclusion of people who live outside the city to make it more 
difficult for them to be" at the lottery was "an attempt to monopolize the spaces ... 
and isn't very prudent because you're going to lose people from the Program." 



The system he was proposing, Mr. Clark said, would facilitate the division of the 
artists into two groups for selecting spaces in a two-day lottery period: there would be 
one group of artists "who want to go to every lottery, like they're doing now ..." who 
"can go every day and they can sign in" (for a space) "every day, and they'll have a 
better chance on the first day to get a spot because there will be less people there"; 
and the other group of artists "who choose to go on the second day and let their 
numbers improve because a day has gone by and they feel that their chances of 
selling on the second day will be better." 



Commissioner Anderson asked whether the artists used their lottery number to obtain 
a space primarily on the first day or the second day, whether one day was better than 
the other. 

Mr. Clark responded that Saturday is the best day to use a number. Under further 
questions by the Commissioner, Mr. Clark explained that the lottery for Downtown 
spaces occurs on Friday, and the lottery for Wharf spaces occurs on Saturday. Artists 
who live outside of the city or have regular jobs tend not to come in on Friday in 
order to sell on Saturday. "When you exclude artists from the possibility of selling in 
prime spaces Downtown on Saturday" (they do not have numbers because they were 
unable to attend the Friday Downtown lottery) "you force them to come in on 
Saturday. In order to get a prime space, they have to go into the Wharf lottery; they 
are then competing for viable spaces at the Wharf with the rest of the artists who 
regularly sell at the Wharf. Therefore, you raise the number of people in the Wharf 
lottery because they don't have access to the prime Downtown Saturday spaces." 



In reference to the statement made by Street Artist Beth Anderson that going to the 
lottery is part of a street artist's job, Mr. Clark stated that "it isn't part of my job ... 
Part of my job is to be creative and have a product to go out there with." As he 
explained at last month's Program Committee hearing, "if I'm allowed to work a day 
or two extra to build up my stock, then I go out there with a better product and make 
more money on the days I go out there; when I make more money, I'm out there even 
less" which gives other artists more opportunity to obtain a space. 

In reference to the statement made by Street Artist Steve Kogan that the proposal 
would promote scamming of the lottery procedures to obtain middle numbers, Mr. 
Clark stated that an artist would not be able to obtain a middle number. If another 
artist submitted his name in his behalf, the artist would obtain whatever number he 
receives in the lottery. If the artist's "friend" fails to put the artist's name into the 
lottery, the artist would not receive any number and would have to resort to utilizing 
the present system of entering the mini-lottery on the next day. 



With regard to the statement made by Street Artist Susan Pete that the proposal would 
http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam041002003.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 8 of 16 



"skewer" the helper's rule, Mr. Clark stated that if an artist receives the last number 
pulled in a Thursday lottery, the artist should have the option to be a helper in the 
next lottery period. 



Street Artist Luis Gervasi supported the proposal by stating that, as a single street 
artist (not a family unit member) and having to take care of his daughter, he was able 
to obtain and work in a space last summer for only two or three days. If the proposal 
were enacted, it would simplify his life: he could go to the lottery on Sundays. He 
explained what he considered an unfair present situation in which a family unit is able 
to submit all of the names of its artists into one lottery and thereby have a better 
chance than that of a single artist in obtaining a good space. 



Mr. Gervasi went on to say that the nature of his craft - ceramics - restricts the 
amount of time he has of selling on the street because its production requires 
extensive time in his studio, whereas artists who produce beadcraft, portraits, or 
caricatures are able, because of the nature of their crafts, to make their items on the 
street every day. The proposal, he said, would benefit him. 



Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak stated that, even as a member of a family unit with her 
mother and husband, she was "absolutely for the proposal". Because of the high cost 
of living, she said, they are forced to live outside San Francisco. In addition, their 
income is significantly derived from selling their wares at many festivals, most of 
which happen to occur on Saturdays, which causes them to miss the street artist 
lottery on Saturday and thereby not have a number to use to obtain a space on Sunday 
or Monday. This especially affects their selling opportunity during the Christmas 
season. Rhetorically, she asked: "Why do I want to pay for a license for thirty days if 
I can only use it for fifteen days?" 



Ms. Bihusyak went on to state that the present lottery system was designed twenty- 
five years ago when there were "different economics. Now we have to work many 
different venues - festivals, work, Program, whatever." 



Street Artist Nancy Pearlman supported the proposal by stating that she has been in 
the Program for seven years, has lived in San Francisco for fourteen years but now 
lives in the East Bay; whereas, it used to take her five to ten minutes to get to the 
lottery, it now takes her an hour and fifteen minutes to come to a Friday lottery, 
"burning fuel, paying tolls. Most of the people who are against this" (the proposal) 
"live in the city." She added that she felt that many of the people who had signed the 
petition against the proposal did so because they had mistakenly understood that the 
proposal would allow artists to sign in for spaces on behalf of other artists, and this 
was not what the proposal was saying. 



Ms. Pearlman went on to state that her brother, a street artist, has a heart condition, 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 9 of 16 



lives in Santa Rosa and has to drive in on a Saturday, often in the rain, "so he can 
work on Sunday. It's ridiculous. It costs him ten dollars in fuel, three bucks on the 
bridge. We're supposed to be conserving fuel. We're supposed to think about the 
environment; we're supposed to be ecologically correct." 



Ms. Pearlman described, under the present rules, an example of a four-member family 
unit putting the names of all of its members into a lottery. The members who receive 
the "best numbers work that day. For the Wharf lottery, that's the Saturday" which is 
"almost always the best day." She herself cannot always come to the lottery on 
Saturday because of other obligations; at such times, she has to work on Sunday; but, 
without enactment of the proposal, she is unable to do so. The present situation, she 
said, is "just unfair." 



Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Pearlman whether it was true that if an artist tried 
to sabotage the lottery procedure by submitting, for example, 500 names, the 500 
persons would still have to personally show up on the following day in order to 
receive their spaces. Ms. Pearlman affirmed this and reiterated that it was the 
misunderstanding of many artists, as it had been originally for herself, that under the 
proposal artists would be able to sign in on behalf of other artists for spaces. 



Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak told the Commissioners that she had encouraged a 
friend to join the Program because it's "a wonderful program, you make money"; the 
friend, Dolores Parker, and her family unit received their street artist licenses. Last 
Friday, they left Napa to drive to the lottery, got in a traffic jam, and missed being 
able to participate in the lottery by seven minutes. "You should have seen the 
disappointment on their faces." Ms. Bihusyak encouraged them, for the future, to 
leave their home at 4 a.m. in order to reach the lottery in plenty of time. 



Street Artist Bob Clark presented to the Commissioners a petition supporting the 
proposal. Originally, he said, he placed it in front of artists at the Downtown and 
Wharf lotteries for their endorsement. Some of them, he said, had such strong feelings 
against the proposal "that they wrote some really nasty things on the paper, and I got 
the impression that I better not approach people unless I felt that there may be a 
possibility that they were in favor of it." He felt that he should not "have to put" 
himself "into physical danger or threats in order to try to just talk to people." He then 
submitted the statement to various artists whom he felt might approve of the proposal 
and received 26 signatures. 

Street Artist Marco Kasek stated that, while he would like to believe that "things 
work right now," the September 1 1th tragedies, as well as the energy crisis, have 
impacted the business climate. Supporting the proposal, Mr. Kasek said that it was 
"futuristic" because it considered "other people." 



Street Artist Bill Clark stated that the proposal was exemplifying what "Marco is 
saying - artists helping other artists." Referring to Street Artist James Billy's "remark 
about us being too lazy to get out of bed" as "an obnoxious statement", Mr. Clark 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam041002003.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 10 of 16 



stated that "we want to make it possible to try to divide" the amount of people 
presently coming to a lottery. No one, he said, will be putting in fifty names; "if 
anything, the first day of a lottery is going to be smaller, the second day there might 
be" an additional twenty people. 

With regard to the statement made by some artists that the proposal would prohibit an 
artist's ability to find out who their competitors would be in signing in for spaces on 
the next day, Mr. Clark said that this was the present situation without the proposal: 
Many artists receive their numbers in the Saturday lottery, do not use them to obtain 
spaces on Saturday, and arrive on Sunday and "see who shows up." The proposal, 
therefore, would not change this "second day" situation; "if anything, "people with 
higher" (poorer) "numbers will get a chance to sign in for better spaces on the first 
day of the lottery and may not come the second day. And then the rest of the 
people ... will come the second day. It's like parting the Red Sea - you automatically 
force people, through the system, to decide what's best for them personally, the first 
day or the second day. ... I think you'll see it isn't as dramatic as some people would 
lead you to believe." 



In rebuttal, Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that, among the 103 signatures on the 
petition opposing the proposal, "there are at least four people who are certified 
handicapped people ... Dolores, Mario, Willie, and David Brancato, one of the finest 
jewelers - if not the finest jeweler - in the Program, who just recently had a stroke" 
and "lives over a hundred miles from this city, and he knows exactly what he was 
signing." 



Street Artist Matt Summers asked whether it was incumbent upon the Commissioners 
"to personally accommodate ... a handicapped" artist or "somebody who is unable to 
come" to the lottery "on time" or "somebody who lives too far away." He stated that 
the Street Artists Program was designed to give opportunity for all artists. 



Street Artist Barry Lefty Prager stated the he felt that the way Street Artist Bob Clark 
presented his petition to the Commissioners "was a little disingenuous - he said that 
people wrote such vile things on the petition, that he was afraid to approach people 
because he felt that the rejection wouldn't be worth it." While twenty-five people 
signed Mr. Clark's petition, "the vast majority" of the artists with whom Mr. Prager 
spoke "do not want this rule." 

Street Artist and Lottery Committee member Brian Hopper stated that "to the people 
who say they can't be there" (at the lottery) "because they have a craft fair on 
Saturday, I say you are making your living there on that Saturday" while "I am 
making my living at the Wharf." He went on to say that if he gets a good number on 
Saturday, he uses it that day at the Wharf to earn his living; because of this, on 
Sunday he is "in the same boat as" the people who worked a fair on Saturday: he and 
they can avail themselves of the mini lottery in order to get a space. 



Street Artist Michael Johnson stated he wished to rebut the comments made by some 
of the artists in reference to their travel time to the lotteries. Because he himself lives 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 1 1 of 16 



in the Mission District, it takes him one hour by Muni to get to the lottery and one 
hour to go home. That is the reason for his choosing to ride a bicycle to the lottery 
which takes him now only fifteen minutes each way. He went on to say that "as far as 
people who are looking for guarantees of income" are concerned, "there are no 
guarantees on anything in life. ... You folks allow us to have a venue in which we can 
make our craft and attempt to sell our craft. For various reasons, you see some people 
come in one day and they're gone the next." 



Street Artist Chrys Camperlino stated that he previously lived in Santa Rosa, sixty 
miles from San Francisco, and now lives in Half Moon Bay; "part of being in this 
Program," he said, "is that you've got to get" to the lottery -"you make the sacrifice if 
you have to, you come to work." He went on to say that if an artist does not receive a 
"good number" from the Saturday lottery, the artist saves the number for use on 
Sunday and enters a mini lottery to sell on Saturday. "It's the system, the way it 
works, everybody has equal opportunity ... That's why you have a mini lottery." It 
was no different for him when he lived in the city: "It's what you have to do" to make 
a living "on the street. The present system is fair to everybody." 

Street Artist Bob Clark, in response to Mr. Prager's comments about Mr. Clark's 
reluctance to approach artists with his petition, stated that in the past he was 
"physically assaulted ... several times by individuals, so I had to be very careful." 
Mr.Clark went on to say that there were several names of artists on Mr. Steneck's 
petition which also appeared on Mr. Clark's petition; because he did not know what 
Mr. Steneck told them prior to their signing, their "true position" was "uncertain." 

Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for Mr. Steneck's petition because it proved that 
there would be about 100 artists who would not put other artists' names into the 
lottery. Since the size of the current lotteries has been roughly 100 to 150 artists, and 
since some twenty-five artists signed Mr. Clark's petition, it could now be estimated 
that only twenty-five to fifty artists would be inclined to put other artists' names into 
the lottery. 



Mr. Clark gave his "final statement": "I'd be more than willing to sign in any of my 
competitors because that will mean that they're not there that day." 



Street Artist Nancy Pearlman stated that "there's such a lack of cooperation in this 
Program" and that the proposal would not add abuses to the Program. She estimated 
that only three or four people a day would, by necessity, call others to put their names 
into the lottery, primarily because of traffic problems or flat tires on the way to the 
lottery. For example, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, artists who lived in the East 
Bay requested that the lotteries occur a half hour later, and this was not approved; 
these artists had to leave their homes much earlier to drive "all the way around" the 
bay to get to the lotteries. "We need to cooperate with one another. It's not going to 
hurt anyone" to allow three or four people who are unable to attend a lottery to let 
others put their names in. 

Street Artist Luis Gervasi stated that, through the years, he has seen artists sign in 
other artists' names - "sometimes you have to do it; it happens." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam041 002003.html 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 12 of 16 



Street Artist Bill Clark pointed out that, at the meeting last month, Street Artists 
Edward Steneck and Sharon MacDougall expressed the view that the proposal would 
enlarge the lotteries to such a point that they would become unmanageable. This 
would not happen, he said, because the Lottery Committee members can only sign in 
the number of people for the number of spaces available. "As soon as the spaces are 
signed in for, the lottery ends." 

Commissioner Stermer closed public testimony and thanked the artists of both sides 
of the issue for attending. 



Echoing Ms. Pearlman's remarks, the Commissioner stated that he, too, was 
"dismayed ... with the lack of cooperation and the lack of trust between the street 
artists." The Commissioner noted that this lack of cooperation and trust was 
expressed by the artists at the Committee's previous meeting when the 
Commissioners were discussing the possibility of having seminars conducted by 
street artists and attended by street artists to help the artists "improve each other's 
craft; and the first response was 'Hell no, I'm not going to help my competitor get 
better!'" 

Nevertheless, in reference to the present proposal and the outcome of the 
recommendation of his Committee, Commissioner Stermer expressed hope that the 
artists "would use this as a way to create more peace out there between you. It's not so 
much as you're competing as you're cooperating: the more people who come and see 
your work" are "people who walk beside everybody else's work as well." The 
Commissioner exemplified his point by stating that while his own field, illustration, 
was down in business, his fellow illustrators and he "don't sit there arguing with each 
other" and attempting to "beat the other one out; we're trying desperately to create a 
coalition of artists to convince the media that illustration is a valuable communicative 
tool, and that is what brought us all together." He would like to see more of this spirit 
in the Street Artists Program. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith expressed appreciation for the artists attending the 
hearing. Referring to the documents relevant to the hearing which had been 
forwarded to him, the Commissioner stated that there was a letter which said he was 
"supporting cronyism", but that he could not recall doing that. He noted that, by the 
submitted petitions, there were about 25 artists for the proposal and 100 against it, 
and that if he were to follow "a simple democratic procedure," he would favor the 
100. "But there's a great idea here," and he asked if there was a mechanism available 
to test it. 



Commissioner Roth stated that she agreed with Commissioner Freebairn-Smith, and 
that if the Committee was inclined to institute the proposal, it should be tested in "a 
temporary probationary period," even a short one as a month or so. This might allow 
artists who had signed the petition against it to either change their minds or maintain 
their opposition to it. She suggested that the test period have an expiration date, with 
the proposal's continuance subject to the Commission revisiting the issue and again 
approving it. 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 13 of 16 



In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, the Program Director clarified that 
the proposal does not require approval by the Board of Supervisors, only by the full 
Arts Commission. 

Commissioner Anderson stated that he spent the time one day observing the street 
artist lotteries and that now, after hearing the issue, he assessed great points of 
arguments made by both sides. He expressed hope that his Committee would seek to 
eliminate the travel expenses of artists attending the lotteries. He observed that 
"sometimes change comes ... at a price of getting some people angry." He, too, 
thanked the artists for coming to the hearing. 



In response to a question by Commissioner Brother Elk, the Program Director stated 
that, in terms of viability, there are presently fifty- four selling spaces on Beach Street 
(Hyde to Polk), ten on Jefferson Street (at Leavenworth), and six on Leavenworth 
Street (at Jefferson) - seventy spaces at the Wharf in which an additional twenty-eight 
prime spaces have been temporarily lost due to the Haslett building construction 
barricades. In the Downtown area, he said, there are currently about the same amount 
of viable spaces - seventy - with the area experiencing the temporary loss of twenty to 
thirty spaces primarily due to Grant Avenue building and street reconstruction. 

Street Artist Matt Summers corrected the Downtown figure by saying that "Sunday 
destroys at least fifty percent of the Downtown spaces" because many of the stores 
are not open on Sundays and their adjacent streets "are deserted." 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that "we have all been working for a long time to 
get better spaces and to improve the spaces." He went on to say that "one of the most 
important things that a government agency can provide to the people who use its 
services is impartiality.... A system that holds impartiality to be one of the highest 
values - so that nobody feels that there is any cheating" or that anyone has an 
advantage over anyone else - "that's really important to the system, and it's really 
important to me. The second value that I would hold very high is just lady luck, that 
the system is designed to give you the opportunity to take a chance on a space. It 
doesn't guarantee you a space; it gives you the opportunity to have a good space a 
not-so-good space." 

The Commissioner further stated that he was impressed by Mr. Hopper's comment 
that since the Committee was considering the proposal, it should consider an all-out 
computer system to run the street artist lotteries. The Commissioner stated that he 
strongly believed that such a step may be for future consideration. The present lottery 
system was designed twenty- five years ago; there are now "some really easy ways to 
make it very impersonal and completely fair ... and there are ways to design a 
computer system that allows", for example, the list of artists to cut off at a certain 
point after it is filled. 

Commissioner Stermer agreed with Commissioner Freebairn-Smith that "normally in 
a democratic society" what is approved or disapproved is in keeping with what the 
"vast majority" wants. In keeping with this, the Commissioner acknowledged the two 
street artist petitions. "But," he said, "had the new ball park been brought to the 
populace, we wouldn't be watching the Giants tonight, because all of Potrero Hill was 
against it ... They thought it would be too noisy; they don't think that anymore." With 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam041002003.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 14 of 16 



respect to the Clarks' proposal, the Commissioner stated that he "really listened to 
both sides," and he felt that his fellow Commissioners had also. He assessed that, 
while much of the argument against the proposal was of the nature of "if it isn't 
broken, don't fix it", the other arguments against it "seemed to revolve, to me, around 
a dismaying lack of trust of your fellow man." 

Addressing the statements that the proposal would foster an opportunity for 
scamming the rules, the Commissioner stated that "there's an opportunity for 
scamming now ... I don't think there is more of an opportunity to scamming with the 
Clarks' proposal than there is right now. People do it or they don't." He encouraged 
the artists to exert peer pressure to stop the scamming rather than legislate against it. 
He proposed that the Commission consider approving the proposal for a trial period 
to commence soon and to end at the start of summer. 

Program Director Lazar clarified that the earliest the proposal could be implemented 
would be May 7th, the day after approval by the full Commission. 

Commissioner Stermer asked the Program Director for an assessment of a suitable 
trial period that would give a sampling of the worth of the proposal - to find out 
whether it engenders abuses, whether it is inefficient, or whether it fails to attract 
artists to use it. Mr. Lazar responded that an adequate sampling period would be the 
two-month summer selling season, from the 4th of July weekend through the Labor 
Day weekend. In response to further questioning by the Commissioner, Mr. Lazar 
clarified that previous trial periods for rule changes adopted by the Commission have 
typically been six-month trial periods. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that because he had "enormous respect for the integrity 
of the artists" who addressed both sides of the issue, if, after the trial period, a 
substantial number of artists were to return to the Program Committee and state that 
the proposal either helped them or hindered the Program, the Commissioner would be 
convinced to retain the measure or end it. The Commissioner went on to say that his 
esteem for Edward Steneck, Bill Clark, and Bob Clark was such that he could accept 
the possibility that, for example, Mr. Steneck would return and say that the measure 
"was working all right" or that Mr. Clark would return and say that his "idea wasn't so 
hot after all." The Commissioner said, "I have that much respect for them that they 
would do that." 



The Program Director suggested that the Committee consider having the proposal 
approved for the months of May and June only; and that if, by the Committee's 
meeting in June, it found that the proposal was heading the Program to disaster, it 
could simply not make a motion for its continuation, thereby making it unnecessary 
to submit the matter to the full Commission. If, on the other hand, the Committee 
found it to be beneficial, it could recommend to the full Commission that it continue 
for a month or two months, through the winter holiday season, or whatever the 
Committee would recommend. 

Street Artist Matt Summers stated that a two-month trial period would be insufficient 
to allow for "an idea to catch on" and insufficient to allow some artists "to get ideas 
on how to abuse it" which, he said, usually occurs five months after a proposal is 
enacted. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 Page 15 of 16 



Street Artist Edward Steneck stated stated that he was "disappointed in the drift of the 
Commissioners at this point." He went on to say that 103 people signed his petition 
opposing the proposal in the last five days. He added that the previous day's rain kept 
most artists from working and that many artists did not attend today's meeting 
because they had to work. He went on to say that 103 signatures versus 25 signatures 
was "not close" but "ridiculously lopsided" rendering the proposal not worthy of the 
Commissioners' consideration. He further stated that most of the attendees were 
against the proposal. 

As the Commissioners were considering a trial period, Mr. Steneck suggested that it 
commence on January 1 st and "not when we're just coming into the summer" selling 
season with a significant loss of prime selling spaces. 

Commissioner Roth acknowledged the fact that there had been great opposition to the 
use of public funds for the new ball park which now "everyone seems to love." With 
respect to the Clarks' proposal, she said, the Committee at present was considering a 
temporary change. 

Both Commissioners Roth and Stermer stated that they were not persuaded that it 
would take five or six months for abuse, if any, to take place. 

Commissioner Brother Elk commented that if artists focused on "a more cooperative, 
sharing spirit, it can actually work the other way, that in six months ... people could 
use that time to actually build in those reinforcing behaviorisms that prevent people 
from cheating." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated he agreed with Mr. Steneck that "this audience 
is predominantly against" the proposal; while he was sensitive to this, however, he 
did not wish to stop change, and if the Committee approved it, he would want to see 
the shortest test period and "a reliable review at the end of the test period." 

Commissioner Stermer noted that in life "most ... inventive things happen against the 
will of the majority because it's change, and most of us don't like change. ... I felt this 
idea had some merit when it was first presented." He expressed that, for his 
Committee's review of the proposal in June, he would like to hear artists testify as to 
whether the proposal afforded them an increase or decrease (in percentages) in 
opportunity of obtaining selling spaces. 

Commissioner Brother Elk added that the Committee would, at that time, also like to 
hear artists testify to specific incidents in which they were helped by the new 
measure. 

Mr. Steneck urged the Commissioners to consider accepting a vote of the street artists 
on the proposal's worth after its trial period is over. He added that he felt "this is our 
business, this is our life, and since there is such a huge majority that in this case 
wanted to keep the status quo, I think you ought to respect us." He went on to say that 
he was not against change when he feels that the change is worthwhile; "I've been on 
both sides of many issues." 

Street Artist Bill Clark stated that, if the Commissioners favored a vote of the artists, 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam041002003.html 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | April 10, 2002 



Page 16 of 16 



he would request that all 400 people in the Program be polled instead of a select 
sample. 

Commissioner Roth moved to approve amending the street artist lottery procedures to 
allow artists to enter into the lotteries names of artists not present at the lotteries for 
a trial period from Tuesday, May 7, to Tuesday, July 2, 2002; the motion was 
seconded by Commissioner Anderson and unanimously approved. 

The Commissioners asked the Program Director to place the matter of the possible 
continuation of the proposal on the agenda of the June meeting of the Program 
Committee. 

To the street artists, Commissioner Stermer expressed joy in seeing the large turnout 
at today's meeting. It was "not an easy question" that was considered, he said, "but I 
have to remind you that, for better or worse, we're the administrating body of the 
street artists, which means we don't have the street artists taking votes on issues that 
are rightly our province. You may not like that, but then you're stuck with it, as are 
we." He went on to say that he wished the same amount of artists would frequently 
attend the Program Committee's meetings "because, whether the people opposed to 
this motion feel it or not, the effect of this petition and hearing the reasons and 
hearing all your testimony have a great deal of effect. It's just that sometimes we don't 
vote with you. We feel that there might be some benefit in making this change for a 
short period of time. But don't feel like you've lost; because it will be revisited. It's 
not like the ball park - it's not sitting there in stone." 



Commissioner Stermer expressed his gratitude to the Clarks: "You guys are so 
valuable to this Program. I don't know if everybody recognizes that, but we do here. 
And I want to thank you for all the work you put in." 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 

[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 

April 22, 2002 



http ://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam04 1 002003 .html 



11/26/2003 



.15 



ox 

lleA 



SlF 



a e 



>AN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
ector of Cultural Affairs 



programs 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Cultural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

Commission Gallery 

101 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



Vthecity.sfsu.edu/sfac/ 
l: sfac@thecity.sfsu.edu 



fe 



NOTICE 



The meeting of the STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday, May 8, 2002 has been cancelled. 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 
May 3, 2002 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAY 7 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240, San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 



file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Clari... Page 3.0/sfac street_artists_prog.htm 




0.76 



STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 
Wednesday, June 12, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JUN 7 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

^Agenda 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE CONTINUATION OF 

AMENDED LOTTERY PROCEDURES TO ALLOW STREET ARTISTS TO ENTER 
INTO THE LOTTERIES NAMES OF STREET ARTISTS NOT PRESENT AT THE 
LOTTERIES 

At its meeting of April 10, 2002, the Street Artists Committee voted to recommend to the full 
Arts Commission that the street artist lottery procedures be amended to allow street artists 
to enter into the lotteries names of street artists not present at the lotteries for a trial period 
of May 7 to July 2, 2002, a recommendation which was subsequently approved by the full 
Commission. 

At the same time, the Street Artists Committee requested the Program Director to schedule, 
for the agenda of its June meeting, a hearing to review and possibly vote to continue the 
above amended lottery procedures. For its review, the Committee has asked to hear from 
street artists as to whether the amended procedures afforded them an increase or decrease 
(in percentages) in opportunity of obtaining selling spaces. The Committee has also asked 
that street artists testify to specific incidents in which they were helped or not helped by the 
new measure. 



5/29/02 12:09 PM 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Clari... Page 3.0/sfac street_artists_prog 

II. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION OF 
PROGRAM DIRECTOR TO REQUEST BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR 
PERMANENT DESIGNATION OF SEVEN (7) FORMER TEMPORARY WINTER 
HOLIDAY SEASON STREET ARTIST SPACES: "Z-l", "Z-2", "Z-3", M Z-4" 
(MARKET STREET, SOUTH SIDE, AT 4TH STREET - ADJACENT TO OLD 
NAVY AND WALGREENS STORES) AND "Z-40", "Z-41", M Z-42 M (MARKET 
STREET, NORTH SIDE, AT MONTGOMERY STREET - ADJACENT TO 
CROCKER PLAZA) 

Designated temporary winter holiday spaces "Z-l", "2", and "3" existed on the above 
described sidewalk (Market Street, south side, at 4th Street) in 1983 and from 1986 through 
2001; space "Z-4" existed on the same sidewalk from 1986 to the present. Spaces "Z-40", 
"41 ", and "42" existed on the above described sidewalk (Market Street, north side, at 
Montgomery Street) from 1986 to the present. 

m. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 
IV. ADJOURNMENT 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
May 29, 2002 






2 of 2 5/29/02 \M 



™ 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Arts Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness, suite 70, basement level, 
unless another site is specified. Suite 70 can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the 
building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Michele Liapes, Public Information Officer at (415) 252-2559 at least 72 hours 
prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton 
B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-7854 
or by email at Donna Hall@sfgOV.org . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine 
Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or print Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
on the internet @ WWW. sfgov.org/bdsupvrs/sunshine.htm 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 



Page 1 of 13 






^STREET ARTISTS COAAMITTEE 
Wednesday, June 12, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 
415-252-2581. 

^ Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrew Brother Elk, Rod Freebairn-Smith, 
Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: Kirk Anderson 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk 

In attendance were Ms. Leigh Ann Baughman, Executive Director, Union Square Business 
Improvement District; Ms. Sarah Maclntyre, General Manager, Pacific Place Management 
Office; Mr. Arrickco Bell, Manager, Old Navy; Street Artists Barbara Bihusyak, William 
Clark, Edward Steneck, Matt Summers 

Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. and stated that, out 
of courtesy to the building and store management representatives present, Item II of the 
agenda would be heard first. 

ACTION 

I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION OF 
PROGRAM DIRECTOR TO REQUEST BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR 
PERMANENT DESIGNATION OF SEVEN (7) FORMER TEMPORARY 
WINTER HOLIDAY SEASON STREET ARTIST SPACES: "Z-l", "Z-2", "Z- 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 



11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 2 of 13 



3", "Z-4" (MARKET STREET, SOUTH SIDE, AT 4TH STREET - 
ADJACENT TO OLD NAVY AND WALGREEN STORES) AND "Z-40", "Z- 
41", "Z-42" (MARKET STREET, NORTH SIDE, AT MONTGOMERY 
STREET - ADJACENT TO CROCKER PLAZA) 

Program Director Lazar explained that temporary spaces "Z-l", "2" and "3" were 
approved by the Board of Supervisors as temporary winter holiday spaces in their 
present sidewalk locations first in 1983 and then every year from 1986 through 2001; 
and space "Z-4" was approved in its present location from 1986 through 2001. For all 
these years, the Program Director stated that he never received nor heard of any 
report describing a problem caused by the spaces, despite the fact that they are on a 
heavily trafficked sidewalk. 

In recent years many street artists, at the end of the winter holiday season, asked the 
Program Director to seek permanent year-round designation of the four temporary 
spaces. The issue was put on "the back burner" due to more urgent matters of the 
Program - until recently, that is, when the Program Director observed the four spaces 
being inhabited by unlicensed vendors selling commercially manufactured jewelry, 
sweaters, sunglasses, and other items, selling such illegal merchandise directly in 
front of Old Navy and Walgreen's and to the frustration of the street artists who are 
forbidden to use the spaces other than during the winter holiday season. 

For the record, the Program Director read to the Commissioners an excerpt from his 
logbook: "March 8, 2002 - 4:30p.m., Market Street at 4th Street: Observed a 
continuous line of 30 feet of tables displaying illegal merchandise by unlicensed 
vendors adjacent to the BART wall and right in front of Old Navy and Walgreen 's. 
The tables were predominantly displaying sweaters and scarves. ..." Mr. Lazar stated 
that, at the time of the incident, he could not imagine why the two stores were 
tolerating the illegal sale of merchandise which was in direct competition with their 
own. 

Upon seeing the illegals using their spaces, the street artists expressed outrage to the 
Program Director with such questions as "How can unlicensed vendors get away with 
selling merchandise they don't make?" "How can they get away with selling it in our 
spaces and displaying it on enormous tables?" (while street artists must be licensed, 
must sell merchandise they do make, must sell it in legal spaces, and sell it on tables 
only 4 feet long). The artists' indignation, added to the Program Director's frustration 
in observing that the street artist and peddling ordinances were being abused, 
prompted the present submission of the request to make the spaces permanent for the 
artists. 

Ms. Leigh Ann Baughman, Executive Director of Union Square Business 
Improvement District, stated that she opposed making "Z-l" through "4" permanent 
spaces because they are on "an incredibly heavily traveled intersection, especially on 
the Market Street side." She went on to describe that the spaces were in an area where 
the sidewalk narrows due to the wall of the BART escalator, rendering the area "a 
safety hazard" as well as a "confusing intersection for visitors to our city" who have 
to cross Market Street in an elongated intersection. 

Ms. Baughman stated a second reason for opposing the proposal: many spaces in 
nearby Hallidie Plaza were not being used by the artists. While she understood the 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo6 1 202.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 3 of 13 



artists' quest for additional permanent spaces in order to take advantage of new travel 
patterns created by shoppers, she asked that the artists consider relinquishing some 
spaces each time they ask for additional ones. She summed up by saying that her 
organization felt that there was a sufficient number of street artist spaces in the area 
that were underutilized. Ms. Baughman added that she did not oppose the retention of 
the spaces as winter holiday spaces. 

Ms. Sarah Maclntyre, General Manager of Pacific Place Management Office, stated 
that she is the building manager for the building which houses Old Navy, Walgreen's, 
and Palomar Hotel, and that she represented the building owners and developers "who 
rehabilitated that entire corner at great expense." She went on to say that her group 
did not support the proposal for permanent designation of the four street artist spaces 
but supported their continued existence as temporary winter holiday spaces "because 
we appreciate and understand that the holiday season can make or break small 
businesses." 

Ms. Maclntyre described the intersection as heavily trafficked with people crossing 
the street at an angle, people coming up 4th Street converging at the corner,and 
people on their way to Walgreen's; the corner, she said, "is actually chaos." To have 
two permanent street artist tables in "Z-l" and "Z-2" and a crowd of people 
congregating around the tables, looking at the wares, would make the situation worse. 
Adding to the congestion, she said, are obstructions caused by a fire hydrant, a light 
pole, and newspaper racks. "Safety is our biggest issue for not just our tenants" but 
for all people in the intersection. 

Concurring with Ms. Baughman, Ms. Maclntyre stated that, in addition to the 
underutilized spaces at Hallidie Plaza, there were 8 permanent spaces just 50 feet 
away from "Z-l" and "2", located across the intersection on the south side of Market 
Street, between the Humboldt Bank building and the Four Seasons building. The 8 
spaces, she said, were located on a sidewalk that is "pretty much a mirror image" of 
the "Z-l" and "2" location; in addition, the sidewalk is wider and has a nearby bus 
zone. 

Ms. Maclntyre further stated that the owners of her building supported the arts and 
were "not against street artists." The building's lobby has ongoing art programs by 
Visual Aid artists; Ms. Maclntyre herself, she said, is "married to someone who 
actually got a street artist license, so I actually understand and appreciate how distinct 
street artists are with licenses versus someone who is without." Nevertheless, the 
building owners and she were of the position that, "from a safety perspective", the 
corner was "too tight" to tolerate permanent artists' displays. 

Mr. Arrickco Bell, Manager of Old Navy, stated that the congestion and traffic "flow 
like a river" in front of his store; added to the jamming of the corner are news racks 
and a hydrant. 

Ms. Maclntyre addressed the issue of illegal vendors in the location and stated that 
her building's store tenants and she were "the eyes and ears of that corner" and that 
they would be willing "to take a more active role, with the guidance of the Street 
Artists Program Director, to call the Police on unlicensed vendors. 

Mr. Bell concurred and said he understood "where" the staff and Commissioners 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 4 of 13 



"were coming from" and pledged his help in the matter. 

Commissioner Stermer thanked them and stated that what the street artists, the 
Program Director, and the Commissioners wished to see was "a level playing field": 
if street artists are paying their dues and are staying in certain spaces restricted to 
regulations and are asked not to be in other locations, then other people should not be 
selling in those locations. 

Director of Cultural Affairs Richard Newirth clarified that "street artists are not 
getting more spaces" in comparison with the number of spaces they have lost and 
continue to lose due to curb zone changes, building alteration, retrofitting, or 
demolition, and traffic detours. He asked the Program Director to mention a few 
examples. Mr. Lazar pointed to the fact that the current three-year projects of 
retrofitting many buildings of Grant Avenue, Geary to Post Streets, as well as the 
tearing up of the street and sidewalks themselves by water- and other pipe 
installations, have eradicated many of the best street artist spaces in the Downtown 
area. In addition, the spaces between the Humboldt building and the Four Seasons 
building on Market Street, mentioned by Ms. Maclntyre, are a mere 10 spaces that 
were salvaged from an original 34 permanently designated for the artists by the Board 
of Supervisors in 1977; the other 24 were eradicated by another City department's 
creation of an adjacent "enormous bus zone." Furthermore, the business value of the 
10 spaces were not nearly as good as that of "Z-l" through "4" because the flow of 
pedestrian traffic from Grant Avenue onto Market Street paled in comparison with 
that of Stockton Street onto Market Street. 

Ms. Baughman again pointed out that many spaces at Hallidie Plaza were not being 
used by the artists. 

In response, Mr. Newirth stated that he has lived in San Francisco for 22 years and, 
with respect to the spaces between the Humboldt and the Four Seasons buildings, "I 
don't walk over there" because it is a commercially "dead" area ... "I walk between 
4th and 5th" streets. 

Ms. Maclntyre stated that she, too, lives in the city, and, while she sometimes takes 
the cable car home, she avoids the Hallidie Plaza cable car turnaround because the 
line of riders is too long. 

Mr. Newirth stated to Ms. Maclntyre that the Arts Commission spends money to hire 
police officers during the winter holiday season to remove the illegal vendors, "and so 
I think that if you hired policemen to get rid of those illegal vendors, then the artists 
wouldn't be upset because they wouldn't see" the illegal vendors being able to sell. 
Ms. Maclntyre noted the volumes of property and payroll taxes that her building 
owners and tenants pay the city and stated that "to hire a separate police person to" 
monitor "that corner is ludicrous." 

Commissioner Roth asked how it could be considered "dangerous" to have two small 
street artist displays on that corner while "a thirty-foot long table" (manned by illegal 
vendors) "not be dangerous. ... There are plenty of illegals out there; I've seen them." 

Commissioner Stermer urged Ms. Maclntyre and Mr. Bell to make a telephone call a 
day for a police officer to remove any illegal vendor in front of their property. He 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 5 of 13 



urged them also to utilize their building's security guards to go out on the sidewalk, 
"without a cop, just flash their badge, and say 'leave - if you don't, you'll be arrested'." 

Ms. Baughman stated that the particular corner of 4th and Market in question was not 
within the Business Improvement District's boundaries. The B.I.D., she said, has a 
hired "10B officer ... working very diligently twelve months a year" verifying 
licensed street artists from unlicensed vendors, as well as verifying street artists 
selling in legal spaces. She further stated that she was trying to get Pacific Place 
Management and Old Navy into her organization so that they, too, could benefit from 
such enforcement. 

Street Artist William Clark, who identified himself as having been "a street artist 
forever," responded to Ms. Baughman's statement regarding vacant spaces at Hallidie 
Plaza. Mr. Clark stated that street artists have often felt that they have been "forced 
into certain locations", even "ghettoized," and, as a result, the artists have been 
wanting to get spaces elsewhere throughout the city. In reference to requesting that 
temporary spaces be made permanent, he said that he "would like all of the temporary 
locations" to be made "permanent." 

Mr. Clark went on to address Mr. Lazar's clarification of the salvaging of 10 spaces 
out of an original 34 on Market Street. Mr. Clark stated that he was present "when we 
were given those spaces ... And we were told to just wait it out, wait it out during the 
whole construction" period, and the 34 spaces would be returned to the artists. "I've 
waited 30 years and watched those locations be taken away. I was looking forward to 
working down there ... Now it's a little bit different situation." In view of the fact that 
the artists have lost many locations, Mr. Clark stated that a few temporary spaces 
should be made permanent. 

Commissioner Stermer asked Ms. Maclntyre whether she would be willing to revisit 
the issue of seeking permanent status for the four temporary spaces if the illegal 
vendors were to be successfully removed. "Right now," he said, "the street artists 
aren't the ones who are causing the problem on that corner; it's the illegals and the 
fact that it's a heavily trafficked corner." If, after 6 months of policing the illegals 
with suggestions from Mr. Lazar, it was found that this appreciably reduced the 
traffic and the confusion, would she be willing to revisit the issue? 

Ms. Maclntyre responded that she would have no problem with revisiting the issue. 
For the present, she proposed that spaces "Z-3" and "4", which are by the BART wall 
and where the sidewalk "is significantly wider," be made permanent spaces. She said 
that she spoke with Mr. Roman Ng, the manager of the adjacent Walgreen's store, 
about this and found out that "he has a huge problem with homeless people there that 
he can do nothing about because they're not really doing anything illegal according to 
the city of San Francisco." Mr. Ng, she said, would rather have two street artist 
displays there rather than the homeless, and this would be better for Walgreen's. The 
area occupied by "Z-3" and "4", she said, is wider and is not as much of a safety 
concern because it is west of the crosswalk and not where the two crosswalks 
"collide" where spaces "Z-l" and "2" are located. 

Ms. Maclntyre also stated that her group would do as much as it could to police the 
corner at least once a day. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 6 of 13 



Mr. Lazar stated that the street artists would be very grateful to receive the two spaces 
as year-round spaces. 

Ms. Baughman stated that the Moscone complex will be creating more pedestrian 
traffic and will impact the 4th and Market corner where ("Z") " T and '2' are the 
greatest concern." She endorsed making "3" and "4" into permanent spaces. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that "being sensitive about the 'Z-l' and 'Z-2' 
locations seems wise to me; it is very crowded there." Nevertheless, he did not want 
to see illegal vendors in street artist spaces. He went on to explain that it was 
anticipated years before, "in the early Yerba Buena days, that some of our visitor 
traffic from Moscone would come to Grant" Avenue and would eventually assist 
business in that location. But "until the Jewish Museum and the Mexican Museum" 
and related activities "finally get going, there really isn't very much traffic" for the 10 
street artist spaces on Market Street between the Humboldt and Four Seasons 
buildings. 

The Commissioner went on to express reservation about possibly "favoring the 
illegals" at the Market and 4th corner. In contrast, he related seeing an outdoor 
security agent for stores in a Boston area who is a street "presence" greeting people 
and dissuading possible dope deals and other problems; the Commissioner wondered 
if the house security of Old Navy and other stores at 4th and Market "couldn't do a 
little more on the sidewalk." 

In response, Mr. Bell stated that his store has cameras and a security team and he 
could order the team to increase surveillance on the sidewalk - possibly do "a sweep" 
of illegal vendors every half hour, if necessary. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that if illegal vending in front of Old Navy and 
Walgreen's "is an issue, you're the only ones who can address it; I'm not going to 
walk down there and say 'Oops, illegals' and call up the cops." 

Ms. Maclntyre responded that the manager of the Palomar Hotel has been calling 
about a man who plays drums on the sidewalk, disturbing the peace; the hotel itself 
has a security person who spends time getting the homeless away from the door. The 
hotel, Old Navy, and Walgreen could all help out on the illegal vending issue, she 
said; but the Police Department should be a part of this united effort. "I pay lots of 
taxes ... I don't want them" (the police) "spending too much time on the illegal" 
vendors when "I've got this huge homeless problem," and until "the laws change, 
homeless can sit there all day, and nobody can do anything about it. ... Even when 
there's a convention in town, they just sit there, and unless they catch them urinating, 
I can't get them arrested." 

Mr. Lazar stated that "it has been a proven fact that where street artists are, homeless 
are not." The artists "displace them, they dissuade them" from being on the sidewalk. 
"And conversely, when the street artists don't inhabit their spots for a length of time, 
the homeless move in." 

Ms. Maclntyre stated that she was willing to do what she could with limited resources 
to address the illegal vending problem in front of her building, but she also wished to 
meet with a representative of the Police Department. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo6 1 202.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 7 of 13 



Ms. Baughman stated that the Business Improvement District covers the other three 
corners of the 4th and Market intersection; "because of what we're doing in keeping 
the illegals away" as well as the homeless, such persons go across the street to the 
fourth corner. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith clarified that, years ago, he and other developers 
"made those sidewalks the widest sidewalks in town until the Embarcadero was 
rebuilt ... and they were designed to have benches, to have magazine stands, to have 
kiosks ... And to find ourselves denying our licensed street artists those very 
sidewalks ... it does bother me. The only argument that is persuasive to me is that the 
flow from Moscone is so strong on that corner because there is the St. Francis, the 
Fairmont, the Drake, and a number of other hotels - their patrons don't go down to 
Hallidie Plaza and go up Powell; they come right through" the Market and 4th 
intersection when they return "from the conventions; it's a very intensely used corner 
at certain times of the day." He urged Ms. Maclntyre, Ms. Baughman, and Mr. Bell to 
assist the Arts Commission with the illegal vending problem. 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that at the recent Parks Conference, the former 
mayor of Bogota attended and stated that he banned all cars from Bogota for one day 
a year, "and it got people out on the sidewalks - not just certain kinds of people ... but 
everyone, mothers, grandmothers." In keeping with this, the Commissioner observed 
that "basically, everybody uses the sidewalks as a place where we all interact with 
each other. ... I would love to see a day where we're not sitting here talking about the 
problems that are happening on" the 4th and Market "sidewalk, but we're talking 
about San Francisco putting its best foot forward and using those spaces in the way 
that they were originally designed. But we obviously have some steps to go before we 
get there. ... All of us are concerned about the illegals throughout San Francisco. It's 
just become a huge problem. And my concern, as a Commissioner on this Committee, 
is that if we don't do something in each of these instances where these illegals are 
starting to take over, we risk losing the whole Program. Really, in my mind, it's one 
of the best programs in San Francisco; it really is San Francisco putting its best foot 
forward." Therefore, the Commissioner expressed appreciation for the business 
representatives offering to assist the Commission on the illegal vending issue. 

The Commissioner went on to state that "the illegals are smart; they realize where 
they can go where they're not going to be harassed or security is a little lax. An 
important point that hasn't been raised is they also know when they're not being 
convicted. You can have police come by and shoo them away and give tickets, but 
unless they're getting convicted," the illegal vendors will continue their activities. 
This, therefore, falls within the responsibility of the District Attorney. The 
Commissioner wanted to see a conviction once in a while "so that word will kind of 
ripple out there that there is a risk of being arrested." 

For the matter at hand, the Commissioner was in favor of the compromise of 
obtaining "Z-3" and "4" as permanent spaces for the artists while helping Walgreen's 
and the artists with the homeless and illegal vendors issues. The Commissioner 
further stated that "that is the block that I'm on ten times more than any other block 
because I'm a big Metreon user ... San Franciscans, not just conventioneers, use that 
block consistently. ... I walk by your businesses three or four times a month, and I 
consistently see illegals in those spots, sometimes even harassing tourists." His 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 8 of 13 



friends who live in the Bay Area will not want to come to 4th and Market "if people 
are hounding them when they get out of the subway. I'd love to see the whole corner 
quieted down a little. ... Let's see what we can do to get the illegals out of there" and 
later revisit the issue of whether "Z-l" and "2" should be permanent. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith pointed out that, in comparison with the sidewalks of 
Stockton at Post Streets which host other street artist spaces, the Salvation Army, and 
musicians, the sidewalks of Market Street "are vast." 

Prior to calling for a motion on "Z-3" and "4", Commissioner Stermer asked for 
information about spaces "Z-40", "41", and "42" (Market Street, north side, at 
Montgomery Street). In response, Mr. Lazar stated that he notified the Building 
Owners and Managers Association about the proposal to make the spaces permanent, 
and that no one from BOMA responded. Mr. Lazar went on to say that the three 
spaces have been temporary winter holiday spaces existing on the same sidewalk 
from 1986 through 2001, and that it is an extremely wide sidewalk adjacent to the 
McKesson complex's steps, far from any doorway or entrance. 

Commissioner Stermer ascertained that no one was present to object to the three 
spaces. 

With respect to spaces "Z-3" and "4", Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak stated it would 
be to the advantage of the stores to have the street artists rather than the homeless or 
illegal vendors; ... We are an asset to the city. Tourists love us." She testified to 
seeing 20 feet of illegal tables; whereas the artists set up their displays in "elegant, 
small spaces. ... Give us those spaces for one month and see if we improve" the area 
by keeping the illegals out. 

Commissioner Roth moved to approve authorization of Program Director to request 
Board of Supervisors for permanent designation of five (5) former temporary winter 
holiday season street artist spaces: "Z-3", "Z-4" (Market Street, south side, at 4th 
Street, adjacent to Old Navy and Walgreen stores) and "Z-40", "Z-41 ", "Z- 
42" (Market Street, north side, at Montgomery Street, adjacent to Crocker Plaza); the 
motion was seconded by Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

At the request of Commissioner Freebairn-Smith, Commissioner Stermer asked the 
Program Director to schedule a hearing in 6 months to revisit the issue of possibly 
making "Z-l" and "2" permanent. 

ACTION 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE CONTINUATION OF 
AMENDED LOTTERY PROCEDURES TO ALLOW STREET ARTISTS TO 
ENTER INTO THE LOTTERIES NAMES OF STREET ARTISTS NOT 
PRESENT AT THE LOTTERIES 

The Commissioners reviewed their April 10, 2002 recommendation to the full Arts 
Commission to amend the lottery procedures to allow street artists to enter into the 
lotteries names of street artists not present at the lotteries for a trial period of May 7 to 
July 2, 2002, a recommendation which was approved by the full Arts Commission. At 
the same time, the Commissioners requested the Program Director to schedule for the 
June meeting a hearing to review and possibly vote to continue the amended 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo6 1 202.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 9 of 13 



procedures and asked, for the hearing, that street artists testify as to whether the 
amended procedures afforded them an increase or decrease in opportunity of 
obtaining selling spaces, as well as testify to specific incidents in which they were 
helped or not helped by the amended procedures. 

Street Artist Matt Summers stated that he was opposed to the amended procedures. 
He said that "street artists as a whole are very reluctant to come to a meeting at any 
time"; therefore, the Commissioners should recall that, at the last meeting on this 
issue, they received a petition of "125 signatures against the proposal" versus "5 for 
it ... the vast majority" of the artists were against it. He went on to say that three 
weeks ago, at the Downtown Lottery, when "everybody comes Friday to use" the 
number they obtain from the lottery to get a space for Saturday or Sunday, the names 
of "at least three people were pulled out of the lottery who weren't here. Of course, 
that impacted on my choice because I had a later number. The second week, it was 
the same thing ... The third week, two people who weren't in the lottery were on 
vacation - they were out of state - and two different people had put their names in to 
the same lottery, and there was a kind of fuss about that because their names appeared 
twice - they were pulled out twice. If this type of thing can happen now, consider 
what it would be like when we have 150 or 200 people all going Downtown - in other 
words, nobody sells on the Wharf at Christmastime - " and there would be "this heavy 
press of people and people putting in other people's names." 

Mr. Summers further stated that last year, during June, "every single" weekend lottery 
"went past eleven o'clock in the morning ... Sometimes it goes into twelve noon ... 
You can see that the problems that come up now" can increase "when you have 
everybody coming down to the lottery." 

He also pointed out the possibility of well-meaning artists putting into the lottery 
names of their friends who are not present, without bothering to find out if their 
friends had arrived earlier, had put their own names in, and then left the lottery. 

He also stated that the amended lottery procedure discriminated against artists who do 
not have cell phones and are therefore, if stuck in traffic and it is close to lottery time, 
unable to telephone anyone at the lottery to put their names in for them. 

Mr. Summers' final point was that the amended procedure "has impacted me ... The 
lottery is the first point where competition comes in - in other words, competition for 
selling spaces; it isn't what you sell." 

Street Artist Edward Steneck read a statement prepared by his wife, Street Artist 
Sharon MacDougall: "Although I haven 't experienced any negative problems in the 
trial period, and sometimes it can be pretty convenient, I still believe big problems 
will occur at Christmas and in summer when lotteries are already huge. Right now 
lotteries have been fairly small ... but this summer it could be difficult ..." 

Mr. Steneck stated that, while he had been the one to circulate the lengthy petition 
opposing the proposed amended lottery procedure, his "own personal experience" 
since the passage of the procedure "is that it hasn't been a problem." He explained 
that, usually on Saturdays and other days, he usually calls out the names of the artists 
during the lottery; "at the end of the lottery, I usually have some numbers" 
corresponding to "the names I've called" and these people have "not picked up their 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 10 of 13 



numbers. These are called unclaimed numbers. ... Now, since this new system has 
been in effect, the amount of numbers I'm usually left with at the end of the calling 
period is not really any more than I was having before - maybe a couple, that's all." 
While there did not seem to be a significant change for Saturdays, Mr. Steneck said 
he noticed a difference on Thursdays which tend to have a larger group of unclaimed 
numbers: "These are people who would have been to the lottery on Thursday, put 
their names in, and would have gone home, because they really want to work on 
Friday. Now they can have a friend put their name in" so they do not have to spend 
the time coming to, and participating in, the lottery. 

Mr. Steneck went on to say that Sharon MacDougall and he have on occasion taken 
advantage of the new system themselves. As he had known even when circulating the 
petition against it, the system was proving to be "very convenient." He added: "It 
saves gas." Nevertheless, he still had a problem with envisioning its practicality 
during the winter holiday season. 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Steneck if recently he had actively sought the 
opinion of the people whose signatures he had solicited against the proposal. 

Mr. Steneck responded that he had not; he had felt that if they had encountered 
problems with the system, they would have complained to him. 

Street Artist William Clark stated that several artists who had signed the petition 
came up to him and told him that "they felt bad that they signed it" and wanted their 
names crossed off . Mr. Clark went on to relate what he felt were positive incidents 
resulting from the amended lottery procedure: 

- A photographer named "David" noticed that on Saturday he had a very high (poor) 
number, but because several artists who had their names put into the lottery that day 
were not present to take spaces (but would take spaces on Sunday), he was able to get 
a good space on Beach Street. 

- Another incident, occurring on the past weekend, involved a street artist who was 
"assaulted by an ex-lover and she had to call the police that morning ... The police 
came" and she, who had signed the petition against the amended lottery procedure, 
was able to ask "another person to throw her name into the lottery" while she was 
filling out and signing the police report. 

- Another artist named "Roger" telephoned Mr. Clark on a Thursday to put his name 
into the Thursday lottery in order to use his number to obtain a space on Friday; as a 
result of this, Roger was able to be a helper on Saturday. 

- Two jewelers named "Marcia" and "Max", who live in Oakland, told Mr. Clark that 
they "are always a couple of minutes late" for the lottery and asked him to put their 
names in for them last Saturday; as result, they were able to use their numbers to get 
spaces and sell on Sunday. 

- George Shuey, whose wife Kathleen Taylor recently passed away, made 
arrangements with Mr. Clark to put his name into the lottery on occasions when he 
will be taking the ferry from Vallejo to San Francisco, whose schedule will make him 
several minutes late for the lottery. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo6 1 202.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 1 1 of 13 



- Two artists named "Bob" and "Silina", who like to go out for breakfast on Saturday 
morning, asked another artist to put their names into the lottery; they were able to 
enjoy their breakfast without having to rush back to participate in the lottery, yet still 
have enough time to sign in for spaces. 

- Charles Bonney, a portrait artist who lives out of town, called Mr. Clark on two 
occasions to put his name into the Thursday lottery so that he could sell on Friday. 

- Mr. Clark and his brother Robert have on occasions put each other's name into the 
lottery. 

- Shannon Murphy, who has to travel across the city, has asked Mr. Clark to put her 
name into the lottery as a precaution against being late. 

Commissioner Stermer asked if some of these people had signed the petition 
opposing the proposal. Mr. Clark replied that some of them had signed it. Mr. 
Steneck interjected: "Almost every one of them." 

Mr. Clark stated that some of the artists who had personally argued with him about 
the proposal "were the first people" to use the new system. He added that many artists 
have told him that the new system has allowed them more time in their studio to do 
their work. In response to the issue raised by Matt Summers that names have been 
erroneously put into the lottery, Mr. Clark stated that those people were not there on 
the day of the lottery to claim spaces, and therefore other artists, who were present, 
got the benefit that day of having more spaces from which to choose. 

Street Artist Barbara Bihusyak stated that she felt, with the new system, there was a 
"very good chance" for an artist to get good spaces during the winter holiday season. 
While she belongs to a three-member family unit (three licenses that can be entered 
into a lottery), last winter holiday season she nevertheless "went seven times home" 
without being able to get a space. "We have no guarantee, because it's a lottery 
system." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Mrs. Bihusyak said she felt there 
would be a better chance of getting a space with the new system, because of the 
accessibility to the lottery for artists who, otherwise, would have difficulty 
participating in it. She stated that Street Artist Harlan Simon, who lives in the East 
Bay, missed several lotteries last December due to traffic on the Bay Bridge and other 
reasons. Recently, he asked her to put his number in because he had to work a 
Saturday and Sunday art festival; because she did so, Mr. Simon was able to use his 
number to sell on Monday. The new system, she said "is the best thing to happen to 
us in three years, and I hope you can continue it." 

Commissioner Stermer stated to Mr. Steneck: "I would really like to thank you, 
Eddy ... You gave me faith in the ability of people to change their mind and come and 
say 'I've changed my mind because something is working'. And I want to compliment 
you. I'm very, very grateful." 

The Commissioner went on to say that he acknowledged "that this room isn't filled 
with nay sayers. We had a lot of people here last time who were very vocal" in their 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 12 of 13 



opposition to the proposal. "They're not here today ... Something has changed 
between last time and this time. I'm persuaded the big change" in the artists' thinking 
"is 'Oh, that's not so bad; it actually helped me a couple of times'; and the abuses 
haven't happened yet." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that it appeared that the new system was 
working very well. 

Commissioner Roth stated that if the Commission extended the system through the 
upcoming winter holiday season, and if it were found to be problematic, the 
Commission could review it next January and possible readopt it with the exclusion 
of its application during the winter holiday season. 

Commissioner Roth moved to approve continuation of amended lottery procedures to 
allow street artists to enter into the lotteries names of street artists not present at the 
lotteries; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously 
approved. 

Program Director Lazar clarified with the Commissioners that their intent was to 
recommend that the full Commission vote in July to continue the new system, allow 
the Street Artists Committee to review it next January, and, if it is found to be 
satisfactory, to not take any action but let the July vote stand indefinitely. 

Commissioner Stermer requested Mr. Lazar to schedule a review of the amended 
lottery procedures for the Committee's January, 2003 meeting. 

The Commissioner thanked Mr. Clark for his and his brother's efforts in submitting 
the proposal and monitoring its effectiveness. 

DISCUSSION 
3 . REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar reported that, after its initial introduction for consideration by 
the Street Artists Committee, the measure voted by the full Arts Commission to 
remove the limit on the number of meetings/studio visits/monitoring duty 
assignments of the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners 
finally was adopted, with modification, as an ordinance by the Board of Supervisors 
and the Mayor after a year and five months. 

Mr. Lazar reported that the Supervisors did not approve an unlimited number of 
meetings, etc., for the Advisory Committee but increased the limit from 25 to 35. 
With the passage of the ordinance, the Program Director has commenced assigning 
the Advisory Committee to more frequent visits on the streets to monitor compliance 
with the wares approved for sale by the street artists. 

The Program Director further reported that he was informed by the Department of 
Parking and Traffic that there will be a 4th of July celebration at Fisherman's Wharf, 
and that street artists are requested to not move their displays into the interior of 
Jefferson Street until the street is closed to vehicular traffic and the police allow the 
artists to do so. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo6 1 202.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | June 12, 2002 Page 13 of 13 



DISCUSSION 
NEW BUSINESS 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith expressed appreciation for the letter which Mr. Tom 
Vosper of Wells Fargo Bank wrote to Mayor Brown, requesting that an ordinance be 
passed to allow the City to permanently confiscate merchandise being sold by illegal 
vendors and requesting that the City clothe the homeless with the confiscated clothing 
merchandise and auction the rest of the merchandise to feed the homeless. The 
Commissioner suggested that the members of the Street Artists Committee, the 
Director of Cultural Affairs, and the Program Director sign a shared letter to Mr. 
Vosper, thanking him for his letter and expressing the Commission's interest in 
securing better enforcement of the illegal vending problem. 

Street Artist William Clark asked about the status of the Arts Commission's request to 
amend the safety regulations for street artist spaces. The Program Director responded 
that it still had to be drafted in the form of an ordinance for submittal to the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Commissioner Stermer adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
June 21. 2002 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/samo61202.htm 11/26/2003 



! Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 
4 



file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Clari... Page 3.0/sfac street_artists_prog.htm 



0.15 



i/oy 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE AUG 7 2002 

Wednesday, August 14, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRAR/ 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 
Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room 
of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing 
electronic devices. 

^Agenda 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Jeffrey Shedrick - Certificate # 5695 (expired 11/15/01). Hearing and possible motion to 
approve July 23, 2002 request by Jeffrey Shedrick for issuance of new certificate. 

At its meeting of January 9, 2002, the Street Artists Committee found Mr. Shedrick in 
violation for selling in a location not designated by the Board of Supervisors, for selling 
within 12 feet of a doorway, and for conducting business in an improper, disorderly, 
hazardous manner (having a vehicle parked in a non-parking zone adjacent to street artist 
display) and recommended that issuance of a certificate for Mr. Shedrick be denied. The 
Committee's findings and recommendation were approved by the Program Director on 
January 17, 2002. 

II. HEARING TO APPEAL PROGRAM DIRECTORS DECISION TO MAINTAIN 
WARNING; POSSIBLE MOTION TO WITHDRAW WARNING 

Robert Clark - Certificate #2753; William Clark - Certificate #2735. Hearing and 
possible motion to approve July 3, 2002 request by Robert Clark and William Clark that 



7/31/02 12:13 PM 



SFAC I Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 



file:///C|/Program Files/FileMaker/Clari... Page 3.0/sfac street_artists_prog. 1 



warning issued by Program Director be withdrawn. 

On June 11, 2002, the Program Director conducted a hearing on a request submitted by 
Robert Clark and William Clark for appeal of the Program Director's May 8, 2002 
"NOTICE OF WARNING" issued to the Clarksfor having allegedly violated the street artist 
ordinance at the street artist lottery of May 5, 2002 in the following manner: (1) 
Obstructing Lottery Committee member Juanita Havet in the performance of her duty of 
running the lottery, and (2) obstructing the Arts Commission's lottery procedure (Arts 
Commission Lottery Rule VIII; Section 2406(a) and Ord. 41-83). Upon conclusion of the 
Program Director's June 11th hearing, the Program Director found "that a significant 
portion of a Lottery Committee member's performance of duty of running the lottery is the 
half hour of preparation detail prior to the lottery itself; because of the verbal altercation 
that occurred between" the Clarks "and Mrs. Havet during that time period, the warning 
for" the first charge "shall remain. " The Program Director further found, however, that 
because "the lottery procedure itself commenced on time at 9:30 a.m. ... the warning for" 
the second charge "shall be withdrawn. " 

On July 3, 2002, Robert and William Clark submitted a request for a hearing by the Street 
Artists Committee to appeal the Program Director's decision to maintain the warning 
relevant to the first charge. 

IE. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE STREET ARTIST 

PROPOSAL(S) FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES ON JEFFERSON STREET AND 
AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM DIRECTOR TO REQUEST PORT 
COMMISSION FOR A HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING SUBMITTED 
PROPOSAL(S). 



IV. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 



V. NEW BUSINESS 



VI. ADJOURNMENT 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION j Street Artists Committee j Meetings Index J 



July 3 1, 2002 



2 of 2 



7/31/0: 1 2:13 PI 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

Pursuant to City Policy and the requirements of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1990 Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all City agencies will make reasonable accommodations to the needs of persons with 
disabilities. 

Full Commission Meetings, and individual Committee Meetings of the Arts Commission will be held at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, located on the corner of Oak and Van Ness, suite 70, basement level, 
unless another site is specified. Suite 70 can be accessed by the two main elevators in the lobby of the 
building. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs, will be available. 

Accessible curbside parking has been designated on Oak Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin 
Street. 

Accessible MUNI lines that serve this location are: 

J, K, L, M, and N Trains: stopping at Van Ness and Market, one-half block 

from the building. 
9, 26, and 42 Buses: serving the area of Van Ness and Market. 
Civic Center BART: located at the intersection of Grove, Hyde, and Market Streets 

For more information on accessible transit, call (415) 923-6142. 

In order to assist the city's efforts to accommodate individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, 
multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other 
attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the city to accommodate these 
individuals. 

American Sign Language interpreters and/or a sound enhancement system will be available upon request at 
meetings. Please contact Michele Liapes, Public Information Officer at (415) 252-2559 at least 72 hours 
prior to meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, 
boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This 
ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to 
the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the 
ordinance, contact Donna Hall: By Mail to Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton 
B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco 94102, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 554-7854 
or by email at Donna Hall@sfgOV.org . Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine 
Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or print Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
on the internet @ www. sfgov.org/bdsupvrs/sunshine.htm 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 1 of 13 



s 






^ STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 

Wednesday, August 14, 2002 DOCUMENTS DEPT 

3:00 p.m. NOV 2 6 2003 

25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 70, San Francisco, California PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 415- 
252-2581. 

^ Minutes 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Kirk Anderson, Rod Freebairn- Smith, Denise 
Roth 

Commissioners Absent: Andrew Brother Elk 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director; Antoinette Worthy, Certification Clerk 

In attendance were street artists Barbara Bihusyak, Robert Clark, William Clark, Kathleen 
Hallinan, Juanita Havet, Jean Havet, Edward Steneck, and applicant for certification Jeffrey 
Shedrick. 

Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:09 p.m. and requested that 
the third item, a hearing on proposals for street artist spaces, be heard first. 



1. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE STREET ARTIST 
PROPOSAL(S) FOR STREET ARTIST SPACES ON JEFFERSON STREET 
AND AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM DIRECTOR TO REQUEST PORT 
COMMISSION FOR A HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING 
SUBMITTED PROPOSAL(S) 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1402.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 2 of 13 



Program Director Lazar described the events leading to the calendaring of this item: 
the fire in the Haslett Warehouse which has delayed for another year and a half its 
reopening as a hotel and has delayed the return of thirty adjacent prime street artist 
spaces it has displaced during its renovation; the resultant business suffering of the 
street artists due to the loss of these spaces; the artists' and the Program Director's 
daily observations of the continuous activities of illegal vendors along Jefferson 
Street from the intersection of Mason Street to Pier 39, selling funsketches, 
commercially manufactured paintings, temporary body tattoos. Adjacent to Boudin 
Bakery, there was a vendor playing a Peruvian flute and manning a stand of packaged 
CDs and audio tapes for sale, with the vendor's Business Tax Certificate on display - 
while "the street artists have to have business tax registration, too," Mr. Lazar stated, 
the street artists are not allowed to be in that location, and neither is the music vendor. 
While the illegal vendors are tolerated by the Port, "it's always the Street Artists 
Program that has to bite the bullet: if a street artist" display, for example, "is six 
inches oversized, the artist could face a three weeks suspension. But here are these 
illegal vendors, and the Port doesn't seem to be doing anything about it", and the store 
"merchants aren't doing anything about it" either. 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, the Program Director admitted 
that there have been instances in which licensed street artists were selling in illegal 
locations on Jefferson Street. 

Mr. Lazar went on to relate that the last time the artists went to the Port Commission 
was seven years ago just to request approval of retaining the spaces then in existence. 
Shortly afterwards, business relations between some of the street artists and Port 
personnel and commissioners deteriorated, and the Arts Commission staff did not, at 
the time, feel it would be proper to return with a proposal for additional spaces. At the 
present point in time, Mr. Lazar stated, "I personally feel that the time would be 
right." Any proposal from the Arts Commission to be submitted to the Port would 
require hearings at the both the Program Committee and full Commission levels, as 
well as approval in the form of a resolution by the Board of Supervisors. 

Commissioner Stermer expressed his wish that spaces be obtained from the Port for 
artists wishing to sell near the Pac Bell ballpark - on the Embarcadero and north of 
the green where there is much foot traffic. The Commissioner had already seen illegal 
T-shirt vendors selling there. He went on to say that, as the Program Director had 
previously pointed out (at a recent full Commission meeting), where licensed street 
artists are located, "there is usually not poachers, and there is usually not the 
homeless, or skateboarders for that matter." The presence of street artists 
"discourages the very people that most of the merchants want to keep away." 

The Program Director informed the Commissioners that he had invited Mr. 
Alessandro Baccari, the Executive Secretary of the Fisherman's Wharf Merchants 
Association, to attend today's meeting. Mr. Baccari, who had often given input to the 
Arts Commission and its Street Artists Program for the past thirty years, was not 
present. 

Commissioner Stermer called for proposals dealing with additional street artist spaces 
in the Wharf area and south of it along the Embarcadero. 

Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan stated that she seconded what the Program Director 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam081402.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 3 of 13 



had related: "he said everything perfectly." She added that when the artists last went 
to the Port, the Port commissioners' "last words to us at that meeting were 'why don't 
we just let things go as they are right now and come back to us with new ideas'." She 
went on to say that some of the artists have done walkthroughs of Port property and 
have ideas for new spaces. She herself has observed "thirty to forty illegal vendors at 
any time on Jefferson Street" (from Leavenworth to Pier 39), whereas the street artists 
were allotted only nine spaces (Jefferson, Hyde to Leavenworth). If street artists are 
given locations, she and other artists, if they see a problem, are prompt in calling the 
police; in addition, she has no problem in telling an illegal vendor that his activity "is 
not appropriate." The artists, she said, bring "order and ethics" to an area, "and beauty 
as well." She felt that it is time to return to the Port with new ideas. 

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated that "as Kathy said, Howard covered it pretty 
well," and that the area of Jefferson Street between Pier 39 and 41 should be 
considered for new spaces - that area, he said, has "wide sidewalks" and "no stores." 
He went on to relate that recently his wife and he had observed, in addition to the 
illegal vendors mentioned by the Program Director, "one guy selling" from "a table of 
watches on the sidewalk near the Wax Museum, right there, brazen as hell." 

The Program Director commented that on the other side of Jefferson Street, the 
business side of the street where the sidewalk is much narrower, many store 
merchants display racks of merchandise which are outright obstructions to the public 
thoroughfare. In contrast, the area of which Mr. Steneck was proposing has a wider 
sidewalk and is opposite an open parking lot, rather than storefronts. 

Commissioner Anderson moved to authorize the Program Director to draw a map of 
proposed legal spaces on Jefferson Street, between Mason Street and the 
Embarcadero, and north of the Pac Bell ballpark, between the green and Pier 40, and 
to propose such spaces to the Port Commission for approval; the motion was 
seconded by Commissioner Roth and unanimously approved. 

HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Jeffrey Shedrick - Certificate #5695 (expired 11/15/01). Hearing and possible 
motion to approve July 23, 2002 request by Jeffrey Shedrick for issuance of new 
certificate. 

The Commissioners reviewed events which had occurred prior to Mr. Shedrick's 
request. At its meeting of January 9, 2002, the Street Artists Committee found Mr. 
Shedrick in violation for selling in a location not designated by the Board of 
Supervisors, for selling within 12 feet of a doorway, and for conducting business in 
an improper, disorderly, hazardous manner (having his vehicle parked in a non- 
parking zone adjacent to his street artist display) and recommended that issuance of a 
certificate for Mr. Shedrick be denied. The Committee's findings and 
recommendation were approved by the Program Director on January 17, 2002. 

Mr. Shedrick thanked the Commissioners for giving him an opportunity to discuss his 
request. He apologized for not having appeared at his previous hearing. He went on to 
say that, during the period of the loss of his certificate, his "business suffered 
drastically," and this was after he had built a large clientele. He admitted to having 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1402.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 4 of 13 



sold in a non-designated location but that the owners of the adjacent building had told 
him they did not care so long as he did not interfere with their business. He submitted 
photos of his "upgraded street vending cart", which, he said, was "downsized to a 
certain extent", and the craft he sold which, he said, took "a lot of packing, of tote 
boxes, and bins ..." He said he has a "great business" and has participated in many 
shows, including the recent San Jose Jazz Festival. 

Mr. Shedrick further stated that his "upgraded street vending cart" is ten feet long by 
six feet wide in order "to downsize to a minimum." 

Program Director Lazar ascertained that Mr. Shedrick, if he received approval for a 
new certificate, intended to sell on the sidewalks with the cart; the Program Director 
stated that it exceeded the regulations which call for a street artist display to be no 
more than four feet long by three feet wide. 

The Program Director further addressed the issue of what Mr. Shedrick had been 
approved to sell versus that which he was showing in his photos. Mr. Shedrick had 
been approved to sell potpourri garlands (potpourri strung into garlands) and not 
loose potpourri which Mr. Shedrick's photos showed. 

Mr. Shedrick responded that he believed he had submitted loose potpourri at the time 
of his examination. 

The Program Director submitted Mr. Shedrick's application which showed the 
Advisory Committee's written approval of "POTPOURRI GARLANDS" and the date 
of the examination: "3-29-01. " He contended that the Advisory Committee did not 
approve Mr. Shedrick to sell baskets of loose potpourri; rather, the Committee 
members approved potpourri garlands because they considered garland-making the 
craft. 

Mr. Shedrick stated that, while anyone could buy loose potpourri from a store, he 
made his own potpourri. 

Commissioner Stermer commented that Mr. Shedrick's cart would be too big for 
street artist selling. 

Mr. Shedrick responded that he uses the cart presently to sell in other venues such as 
craft shows and that he was not proposing to use it as a street artist. 

Certification Clerk Worthy stated that the only street artist area in which Mr. Shedrick 
would be allowed to use the cart is Justin Herman Plaza which is not subject to the 
sidewalk regulations and has room for ten-foot displays. 

In response to Commissioner Stermer's request for a recommendation, the Program 
Director recommended that Mr. Shedrick be allowed to obtain a new certificate but 
with the stipulation that he follow all of the regulations of the Street Artists Program 
which include regulations governing the size of display. To Mr. Shedrick, he stated: 
"I wouldn't want to see you out there with the cart and tell me 'Oh, I'm working on it, 
I'll be cutting it down'. When you're ready to go out, then you are going to go out 
trimmed to size, like everybody else." With regard to what he would be allowed to 
sell, the Program Director clarified that it would be only the garlands; if Mr. Shedrick 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1 402.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 5 of 13 

wanted to try to obtain certification for loose potpourri, he would have to apply for a 
screening. 

If that were the case, Commissioner Stermer told Mr. Shedrick that he would have to 
be prepared to demonstrate exactly how he makes the potpourri - "the ingredients in 
their purchased state and then what you do to turn them into your product." 

Commissioner Roth asked Mr. Shedrick who his "staff was, as mentioned in his 
letter request. 

Mr. Shedrick responded that he has "one lady by the name of Nadine Fisher and a guy 
by the name of Jimmy Motley" and a person named "Bench Ewing." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth as to what these people contribute to 
Mr. Shedrick's craft, Mr. Shedrick stated that "they pretty much help me out because 
I'm so overwhelmed with a lot of people and only have two hands, like going to take 
money ... and bags up ... goes to the parking lot, gets more garlands ..." 

In response to another question by Commissioner Roth, Mr. Shedrick stated that he 
made the garlands himself and that he sells them himself. He understood, he said, that 
he, as a street artist, could not have salespeople. 

Certification Clerk Worthy informed the Commissioners that Mr. Shedrick, prior to 
allowing his certificate expire, brought another applicant in for a screening to be a 
family unit with Mr. Shedrick; it was Jimmy Motley who received approval but did 
not purchase a certificate. 

Commissioner Stermer stated to Mr. Shedrick that, if he were to receive a new 
certificate and then be found in violation again, "I suspect that we're not going to be 
tolerant. Our responsibility is to all the street artists, and that it's a level playing field 
for everyone out there, and if some people are taking advantage of that level playing 
field like sliding by the rules, then we have to stop it on behalf of all the other people 
who are trying to sell." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Roth, Mr. Shedrick stated that he had not 
renewed his certificate because at the time he had been involved "in a car accident, so 
it hindered me from standing up." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Stermer, Mr. Shedrick stated that he 
understood the stipulations voiced by the Program Director. 

Commissioner Roth moved that Mr. Shedrick be issued a street artist certificate with 
waiver of re-screening of wares; the motion was seconded by Commissioner 
Anderson and unanimously approved. 

Mr. Shedrick expressed interest in continuing to sell in the spaces adjacent to the 55 
Stockton Street Building (where he had previously violated). 

The Program Director informed Mr. Shedrick that he would have to compete with the 
other artists in the lottery for those spaces. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam081402.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 6 of 13 

3. HEARING TO APPEAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO 

MAINTAIN WARNING; POSSIBLE MOTION TO WITHDRAW WARNING 

Robert Clark - Certificate #2753; William Clark - Certificate #2735. Hearing and 
possible motion to approve July 3, 2002 request by Robert Clark and William Clark 
that warning issued by Program Director be withdrawn. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he was familiar with the complaint and the cross- 
complaints and that he wished to limit the hearing to ten minutes. (In actuality, the 
following hearing encompassed 48 minutes.) The Commissioner observed that there 
were no punitive ramifications to the warning. He urged the parties to be brief. 

At the Commissioner's request, Program Director Lazar briefly explained the case. He 
received a report of a verbal altercation on Sunday, May 5th, between Lottery 
Committee member Juanita Havet, who allegedly was attempting to run the lottery, 
and Robert and William Clark. The altercation started over what Ms. Havet said or 
did not say to a third party, Charles Bonney, who, the Program Director claimed, was 
the only witness to the entire incident. Mr. Lazar referred the Commissioners to the 
letters he received from Ms. Havet, the Clarks, and Mr. Bonney, explaining their 
views of the incident. 

The Program Director went on to state that he issued a written warning Robert and 
William Clark for having allegedly violated the street artist ordinance in the following 
manner: (1) obstructing Lottery Committee member Juanita Havet in the performance 
of her duty of running the lottery, and (2) obstructing the Arts Commission's lottery 
procedure (Arts Commission Lottery Rule VIII and Section 2406(a) of Ord. 41-83). 
The Clarks responded with a request for a hearing with the Program Director to refute 
the charges. Upon conclusion of the hearing on June 1 1th, the Program Director 
found that, because the lottery procedure itself commenced on time at 9:30 a.m., the 
Clarks had not obstructed the lottery procedure, and the warning for the second 
charge was withdrawn. With regard to the first charge, however, the Program 
Director found that a significant and essential portion of a Lottery Committee 
member's performance of duty of running the lottery is the half hour of preparation 
detail prior to the lottery itself; because of the verbal altercation that occurred 
between the Clarks and Ms. Havet during that time period, the Program Director 
maintained the warning for the first charge. The Program Director stated that, 
regardless of who started the row, he assessed that interference by the Clarks of a 
Lottery Committee member occurred. The Program Director's evidence included the 
testimony of Charles Bonney who, he said, expressed the view that both sides were at 
fault in keeping the argument going, that Ms. Havet had "started off with a chip on 
her shoulder", and that the Clarks also "had a chip on their shoulder" because they felt 
extremely sensitive about being talked to in an offensive manner as the persons who 
had started the Program, "that they were overly attached to their role as creators of the 
Program." 

The Program Director went on to say that, during the course of his hearing with the 
Clarks and Ms. Havet, he himself had questioned why the Clarks had not walked 
away from the argument, to which William Clark had queried whether the Program 
Director would walk away if someone shouted abuse at him; the Program Director 
had responded with "yes, I could, and I do that frequently." The Program Director 
also stated (as he had at his hearing) that, had the Clarks walked away, they could 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1402.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 7 of 13 



have been the ones to call the Program Director with a complaint about the Lottery 
Committee member, which might have resulted in a warning issued to Ms. Havet for 
misusing her authority. 

Street Artist Lottery Committee Member Juanita Havet told the Commissioners that 
she did not feel that she initiated the incident; "I went" to the lottery "on Sunday 
morning with the sole purpose of running the lottery so I would have first choice" to 
obtain a selling space. She went on to say that, as a Committee member, she does "a 
lot of work" and that the lottery members are never thanked for the work they do. In 
thirteen years of doing this work, she said, "I never abused anybody at my lotteries; I 
don't make it a point to start screaming or arguing at my lotteries. ... I go there to run, 
as efficient as possibly I can, the lottery, get it done", select a selling space, "and go 
to work. That's all the pay I get for being there early," running the lottery, "and taking 
a lot of abuse sometimes." 

Ms. Havet further stated that the Program Director, who frequently observes the street 
artist lotteries, "can tell you that they're chaos ... You've got people coming at you 
from all sides," wanting duplicates of number slips, "they're not happy if they didn't 
get the space they want. And all this" for the Lottery Committee member "is basically 
for free. What you get for your trouble is you get first choice of your spot, and people 
begrudge you getting first choice of your spot." 

With respect to the incident in question, Ms. Havet stated that she "didn't know until 
after the whole confrontation was over, and I was in tears, I didn't even know what 
the whole thing was about. Supposedly, I disrespected the Clark brothers. ... That was 
imagined as far as I'm concerned. ... I asked them over and over and over to go away 
so I could run the lottery. / didn't have the option to go away. I had to do that lottery, 
or I didn't have a spot that day; I couldn't sell. Otherwise, I would have taken a hike, 
rather than have stayed to "have these guys scream that I'm 'a f— ing b~ch' in front of 
a crowd of about fifty people over and over again, for some supposed disrespect." Ms. 
Havet concluded that she did not feel that a Lottery Committee worker "should have 
to be subjected to abuse ..." 

Street Artist William Clark told the Commissioners that, while witness Charles 
Bonney was not present at today's hearing, he, Mr. Clark, had a video of Mr. 
Bonney's "testimony" which "impeached all of Ms. Havet's "testimony" and 
"completely contradicted everything that she just told you ..." Mr. Clark further stated 
that she shouted at Mr. Clark and his brother Robert "from a distance of fifteen, 
twenty feet away ..." Mr. Clark, shouting, mimicked Ms. Havet's alleged words: " 
'Stop encouraging him! I just told him he couldn't be lottery helper! What are you, 
stupid? I just spent fifteen minutes with him telling him this!' " 

Mr. Clark, in a quieter tone, went on to say that his brother told her he was simply 
"trying to explain certain things to" Mr. Bonney. Mr. Clark said that he was sitting 
between Ms. Havet and his brother, and that while she was "screaming", he, Mr. 
Clark, was telling her " 'Stop! Stop!' and I tried to stop her; I just simply said to the 
lady ... 'Look, don't keep this up. If you keep this up, you're going to make him angry 
because you disrespected him, you disrespected him from the beginning.' And she 
said, 'I didn't disrespect him.' I said, 'Listen, I heard the tone of your voice; you did 
disrespect him.' And then she got up, left the lottery table, and went over to Charles 
and insisted on asking Charles if she disrespected him ..." to which Mr. Clark told 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1402.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 8 of 13 

her, " 'Hey, look, we're not talking about Charles; we're talking about my brother.' " 
Mr. Clark then stated that "she kept yelling at me, telling me to shut up, telling my 
brother to shut up, and then she went back to the lottery table ..." Mr. Clark's brother 
asked her for the time (to ascertain the exact moment when a helper is to be chosen), 
and "she refused to tell him what time it was; then she made comments about 
'Where's Eddy's petition?' " (a petition previously circulated against a proposal of the 
Clarks) " 'If he was here right now, I'd sign it.' " Mr. Clark concluded that "she made 
these remarks that provoked this hostility." 

Mr. Clark further stated that, after the remarks were made, Ms. Havet chose her 
helper and "did everything that was necessary to do to pick the helper, which includes 
signing sheets, getting them prepared, getting their spaces - that all has to be done at 
9:10. She did all that." Mr. Clark then went to her to turn in his lottery slip, but "she 
refused to take my slip, and she told me: 'Get the hell out of here!' And I told her I 
wasn't leaving, I was here to put my slip in, and then she looked at me and she said: 
'Get a life!' " The third time he offered his slip, Ms. Havet took it, after which "she 
made more comments" to "provoke" them. 

Mr. Clark explained that on Sundays, "there's no lottery"; rather, at 9:30, there is an 
assignment of spaces. "At 9:10, the Committee member picks the helper." He went on 
to say that "after the helper is chosen, there is nothing else" for the Lottery member to 
do. Mr. Clark, referring to the Street Artists Program's "bluebook" of rules, quoted 
from page 90: " 'Choosing the Mini Helper. At 9:10 a.m. the Committee member 
must choose the one helper who assists at the 9:30 a.m. Mini Lottery and Main 
Lottery secondary sign-up. The method of selection is the same as in the case of the 
three Main Lottery helpers. The Mini Lottery helper spends the time between 9:10 
and 9:30 a.m. collecting the lottery slips for the 9:30 a.m. sign-up, entering them on 
the "Used" number sheet established at the Main Lottery one or two days previously, 
and entering street artists in the Mini Lottery. ' " 

Mr. Clark also quoted from page 78: " MINI-LOTTERIES. Non designated helpers 
for Mini-Lotteries are chosen according to the same principles as for Main Lotteries. 
The work to be done is the same as in Main Lotteries, except that it is done by one 
helper. The Mini-Lottery helper first organizes the sign-up of Main Lottery numbers 
and then helps conduct the Mini-Lottery, performing all three functions as in a Main 
Lottery. ' " 

Mr. Clark also quoted from page 91: " 'The 9:30 a.m. Mini Lottery. Tlie Committee 
member's first task at the 9:30 a.m. Mini Lottery is the sign-up of numbers held by 
street artists ... ' " Mr. Clark concluded by saying that "from 9:10, once the helper is 
chosen ... to 9:30, the Committee member does nothing. The helper ... does all the 
paper work, and the Committee member is not allowed to do anything before 9:30. ... 
I was sitting there, minding my own business, doing nothing, and I was trying to calm 
her down because she was yelling and screaming at my brother, and then I was in the 
middle of them, and then she started yelling and screaming at me. ... I explained to 
her and her husband that ... after the third, fourth time of asking her to back off, she 
kept up, and I told my brother to back off, and I said to him: 'If she wants to act like a 
stupid b~ch, let her act like a stupid b~ch.' I never called her a f— ing b~ch. I never 
used obscenities towards her. I made that comment to my brother. ..." 

Street Artist Robert Clark told the Commissioners that he wanted "to know the 
specific things that my brother and I did that Howard claims we obstructed." Through 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1 402.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 9 of 13 



the Chair, Mr. Clark asked the Program Director what testimony was presented to 
him "at that hearing that said we obstructed anything that she did." 

The Program Director responded: "The testimony from Charles Bonney that said that 
you kept the argument going with Juanita." 

Mr. Clark commented: "So because I keep an argument going, somebody accuses me 
verbally...." To the Program Director, he again asked for specific evidence from the 
hearing. To the Chair, he stated: "I'm doing it to protect my rights." 

At this point, Commissioner Roth asked both Clarks if they had received a suspension 
for the incident, to which they replied in the negative. Mr. Robert Clark stated: "I've 
been found guilty. ... If I'm accused of this one more time, my license will be taken 
away from me. ... I'm not pleading no contest. If I don't defend myself, ... it's a 
violation that I'm to be found guilty of. And I feel like, when I'm having a private 
conversation with somebody twenty feet away about ... her giving this guy wrong 
information, I pull him aside, I try to explain to him what the right information is, and 
then twenty feet away I've got this person screaming at me to shut up. I turn around to 
her and I said 'Look, let me explain to you what I'm trying to tell this guy ...' " 

Commissioner Roth further questioned the Clarks as to the number of years they have 
been in the Street Artists Program, to which Mr. Robert Clark replied: "Thirty years." 
The Commissioner asked for the number of reprimands they have received, to which 
Mr. Clark replied: "None." The Commissioner then asked: "Do you honestly believe, 
having sat in as many meetings here as I've known you have sat in and having 
listened to us ... renew other people's licenses" after they committed "flagrant, 
multiple violations ... do you actually think that the four of us will take away your 
licenses, after thirty years in this Program, for getting into an argument? ... Do you 
honestly believe that that is a possibility?" 

Mr. Robert Clark stated that he could not say what the Commissioners would do; "I 
know that if I am found guilty of this, this charge, that I have ... the possibility of 
anybody that wants to present a charge against me, if I am found guilty of it, that the 
possibility of my license" would be in jeopardy. 

Commissioner Roth again offered the question: "Having sat in this room month after 
month after month and watched us give second and third chances to people who have 
repeatedly violated the rules, do you actually believe - ?" 

Mr. William Clark interjected: "You may not be here. Commissioner, when there's a 
new mayor that comes in, there is going to be all new commissioners." 

Mr. Robert Clark stated that, as evidence to support his position, he wished to present 
testimony of Charles Bonney (as recorded in the hearing conducted by the Program 
Director). 

Commissioner Stermer stated that Mr. Bonney said that Ms. Havet was called "a f— 
ing b~ch, " to which Mr. William Clark responded: "You can do whatever you like, 
Commissioner; I deny that I called her that." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that if the Clarks wished to show Mr. Bonney's 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam081402.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 10 of 13 



testimony, the commissioners would consider all of his testimony. 

Mr. William Clark stated that, after the Program Director hearing, "Charles Bonney 
clearly states that ... she started yelling at me for no reason at all ..." 

Commissioner Anderson stated he found it difficult to dismiss the charge "because 
something happened that day." To this, Mr. William Clark responded: "That doesn't 
matter" because there was no evidence that he disrupted Ms. Havet from her duty, 
and that "first of all, she has no duty. She's claiming that she was stopped from doing 
something between 9:10 and 9:30. There's nothing between 9:10 and 9:30 she did. ..." 
Mr. Bonney's "testimony clearly states that the premise of Ms. Havet's "complaint in 
her letter ... that my brother and I walked up to her for no reason and started 
screaming and shouting at her. ... was not true." 

With regard to the alleged name-calling in the incident, Program Director Lazar 
stated that several years ago the City Attorney clarified for him that, while the First 
Amendment does not permit the Arts Commission to suspend or revoke for foul 
language used by an artist against another artist, the Commission does have the 
authority to suspend or revoke in matters where language or other forms of 
expression obstruct the business of another artist or the duty of staff people. 

Mr. Robert Clark stated that Ms. Havet's "credibility is shot because she was caught 
lying." 

The Commissioners viewed, on a video monitor, the Clarks' chosen excerpts of 
Charles Bonney's testimony from the videotape they made of their hearing with the 
Program Director. 

Mr. Robert Clark again asked, through the Chair, the Program Director for a response 
as to "what specific obstructions occurred.... Was there any obstruction?" Mr. 
William Clark stated that he did not know from the Program Director how he 
specifically obstructed Ms. Havet. 

The Program Director responded that while William Clark made his point that from 
9:10 to 9:30 Ms. Havet did not have anything to do, "I didn't agree with that, because 
I was persuaded by" Ms. Havet's "argument that she did have things to do. And that 
was my right to accept that evidence - her testimony - over his testimony. ... My right 
is to assess what we feel is the weightier testimony. ... I was persuaded by the fact 
that there was acrimony there" which interfered with her job. Regardless of whether 
she did or did not "physically have something to do ... her job is to be present and to 
be monitoring that helper" to ensure that the helper is doing his/her job "and to 
monitor anything else, to be on call if there's any mishap at all prior to 9:30. 1 felt that 
was her job, her responsibility, her duty. She can't just say 'Well, I've done 
everything, it's 9:10, take it over, I'm leaving.' If that were the case, the rules would 
be written" to allow for the Lottery Committee member to leave after 9:10. 

Mr. William Clark attempted to cross-examine Mr. Lazar. 

Commissioner Stermer told him he had received his response. 

Mr. Robert Clark interjected: "So we impeach her testimony, we prove that she's a 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1 402.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 1 1 of 13 



liar ..." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that if there were further interruptions, he would 
adjourn the meeting. 

Mr. Robert Clark continued interjecting with "we present evidence that impeach her 
testimony, her credibility, and then Howard stands here and says he takes her 
credibility over us when we prove she's a liar! Go ahead and do it!" 
Commissioner Anderson stated he supported the Program Director's position: "He's 
made a decision, and I back his decision." 

Mr. Lazar stated that "we can sit here and we can" act as "lawyers and look at all the 
testimony and look at this and look at that, and everything kind of adds up to this and 
that, but, you know, it really doesn't add up. Because the result was it didn't work. 
There was a grand failure here. And I'm not going to say who started it or who didn't 
start it and who's right and who's wrong. There's a grand failure: people didn't get 
along; it was a sorry situation. And my feeling was ... that if both parties had come 
into the room" of the hearing in which he was presiding ... and they "sat down over a 
cup of coffee and said 'You know, it's really ridiculous ... I'm sorry that I blew up at 
you,' 'I'm sorry that I reacted or that I blew up at you, let's just shake, let's just forget 
it' ... if they had done that, I would have dismissed the whole thing." 

Commissioner Stermer stated: "If they had done that today, we probably would have 
dismissed the whole thing." 

Mr. William Clark stated: "That's baloney" and that Ms. Havet was "the one who 
filed the complaint." 

Commissioner Stermer responded that he "brought up four kids as a single parent, 
and I have never in the household heard 'He did it to me', 'He did it to me first', 'They 
did it first' " without telling them " 'Go all to your rooms and come back down', and 
fifteen minutes later they're friends." 

To this, Robert Clark interrupted with "Hey, I'm not your little kid! I brought in a 
witness that proves that she attacked me ... when I was having a private 
conversation." 

Mr. Jean Havet stated to the Clarks that they had had time to "work it out," to 
apologize to his wife, and that, had they done so, the complaint would not have been 
pursued. 

Ms. Havet stated that, at the Program Director hearing, she, too, said that ' "if 
you" (the Clarks) "had just apologized, it would have been over, I wouldn't have filed 
any complaint whatsoever ... And again at the end of the ... session here, they did it 
again, they did the same thing again, they said 'I don't apologize for calling you a f— 
ing stupid b~ch. You are! ' " 

Commissioner Stermer reminded everyone that all public testimony was over. 

Commissioner Roth asked that the three artists be given "the opportunity once again 
to apologize." No apology was forthcoming. 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1402.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 12 of 13 



Commissioner Roth moved to uphold the Program Director's decision to maintain the 
warning; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith. 

Before a vote was taken, Commissioner Freebairn-Smith expressed concern over 
whether "the Arts Commission can maintain a sensible businesslike lottery. Does this 
incident demonstrate to us something else ... Is the lottery run properly? ... Should we 
have the staff do it?" 

Commissioner Stermer asked whether altercations between lottery workers and other 
artists happen regularly. To this, the Program Director responded that they did not. 
That was why, he said, he "wanted to see the hatchet buried" so that all parties and 
their Program could "move on. I have no interest in prosecuting or pursuing this. I 
think it's an unfortunate situation between three people ..." who "reacted to each 
other. Like attracts like. That's an undeniable law of the universe." 

Commissioner Stermer concurred by expressing an analogy of "a baseball manager 
who comes out and argues the pitch, and the umpire follows him back to the dugout 
in order to confront him. Now, yes, the baseball manager is the guy who started it, but 
the umpire could have turned around and walked the other way, and it would have 
been over. Otherwise, he walks him back into the dugout and yells at him, and the 
manager yells something back, and he's thrown out of the game." 

In response to a question by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith on the Arts 
Commission's authority relative to verbal abuse, Commissioner Stermer stated "that 
the language" in the incident "got so inflammatory" and that the Commission had no 
redress for it but to "hope that it doesn't happen" again. "The world's an angry place 
to begin with. I'm persuaded that" the incident did not point to "a fundamental flaw in 
the" lottery "system." Furthermore, he acknowledged the strength of the lottery 
system's allowance for improvements, as the one approved at the last committee 
meeting, a measure which had been submitted by the Clarks and which had prompted 
Street Artist Edward Steneck to announce publicly that he had changed his mind 
about opposing it, that the measure was benefiting others and himself. This showed, 
the Commissioner said, that "people were willing to change their minds" which, in 
turn, enhanced the Commission's lottery system. 

Commissioner Roth stated that she found it difficult "to imagine that" Ms. Havet 
"works from 9 a.m. to 9:10, then she twiddles her thumbs for twenty minutes ..." 

Mr. Robert Clark interjected: "Well, tell us one thing that she does." When 
Commissioner Roth reminded him that public testimony was closed, he responded: "I 
don't care." 

The motion was unanimously approved. 

Commissioner Stermer acknowledged that Mr. Robert Clark was disrupting the 
meeting, to which Mr. Clark stated: "Hey, the next time I'll have my lawyer with me, 
you can tell it to him. So you wanna threaten me?" 

4. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam08 1 402.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | August 14, 2002 Page 13 of 13 



The Program Director shared several pieces of e-mail correspondence from customers 
praising the prints they purchased from street artists Barbara and Yuriy Bihusyak. 
The letters thanked the artists for the experience of buying from them. The Program 
Director stated that, while the Committee typically hears street artist issues dealing 
with struggle and controversy, he wanted the Commissioners to understand "that 
there are people who appreciate this Program - the people in it. ... It's still a novelty 
meeting the person who makes what they sell." 

Ms. Bihusyak said she had a hundred similar letters from customers, and that one of 
her prints is in the Mayor's office. 
5 NEW BUSINESS 

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that he "wanted to inform the Committee that, up 
until this time" the Program Director "has been telling people who come into this 
Program, any questions about how the Program runs, come up to the Clark brothers 
and they'll be more than glad to tell you about it. I just want to inform the Committee 
I don't want Howard telling people to do that anymore. And I don't want any of the 
Commissioners telling people come up to the Clark brothers and they'll help them 
find out what's going on. Because if I'm going to be railroaded, I don't want to have 
anything to do with the Art Commission." 

Street Artist William Clark inquired as to whether or not the Program had ascertained 
the figures of its total revenue and expenditures for the previous year. 

The Program Director responded that the Controller's office will be closing its books 
of the previous year at the end of August, and that the Program Director will request 
the figures at that time. 

Mr. Clark stated that, in recent times, it took four years to obtain such information 
from the Controller's office. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted; 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 

[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
August 29, 2002 



http://sfgov.org/sfac/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam081402.htm 11/26/2003 



7/| 

J 



S F 



A C 



MN FRANCISCO £RTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
or of Cultural Affairs 



programs 

Civic Design Review 

Community Arts 

& Education 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

tural Equity Grants 
Suite 60 

^ivic Art Collection 

reet Artists Licenses 

Suite 70 

dmmission Gallery 

I Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



HECITYSFSU.EDU/SFAC/ 
FAC@THECITY.SFSU.EDU 



Notice 



The meeting of the STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday, September 11, 2002 has been cancelled. 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 



Street Artists Program 
September 5, 2002 



09-10-02 



: 




ity and County of 
San Francisco 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 
SEP 1 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC 



5 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240. San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 



71 \rv\-, | ouc^t ruuaw x iv^g 



icujti \_s\jiiiiiiii.ivw | uviuuvi 



ip.// oiciv.^i^u.C'UU/iiiv^uii^a/a^^iiua;^.vywz./dt_ai i&/ SclitlUU^UZ. 



s~TI SAN FRANCISCO 
a~~c ARTS COMMISSION 



RHOMB 




JTREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE 

Wednesday, Qctober 9, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 
OCT 8 2002 



SAN FRANCISCO 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California PUBLIC LIBRARY 









Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 
25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 
415-252-2581. 

Public comment in regard to specific items will be taken before or during consideration of the item. 

The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are 
prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting 
room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound 
producing electronic devices. 

^ Agenda 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 

Adriel Quintana Loayza - Certificate # 5886. Alleged violation: Selling items not of 
the artist's own creation (soldered silver-capped colored stone pendants). 

Section 5 of the Street Artists Ordinance allows the Director of Cultural Affairs to 
refuse to issue or renew a street artist certificate if charges have been filed alleging 
deception or violation of the Street Artists Ordinance. Under the Arts Commission's 
Section 5 procedures, the Director of Cultural Affairs may withhold the issuance or 
renewal of a street artist's certificate if the artist is charged with the violation of selling 
items not of his/her own creation, a charge of serious violation which is considered by 
the Commission to "significantly threaten the integrity of the Street Artists Program. " 



10/04/2002 12:12 PN 



/ cxxa. i \j\j 



II. REHEARING TO APPEAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO 
MAINTAIN WARNING; POSSIBLE MOTION TO WITHDRAW 
STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO MAINTAIN 
WARNING; POSSIBLE MOTION TO WITHDRAW PROGRAM DIRECTOR 
WARNING 

Robert Clark - Certificate #2753; William Clark - Certificate #2735. Rehearing and 
possible motion to withdraw August 14, 2002 Street Artists Committee recommendation 
to maintain warning; and possible motion to approve request by Robert Clark and 
William Clark that warning issued by Program Director be withdrawn. 

On June 11, 2002, the Program Director conducted a hearing on a request submitted by 
Robert Clark and William Clark for appeal of the Program Director's May 8, 2002 
"NOTICE OF WARNING" issued to the Clarksfor having allegedly violated the street 
artist ordinance at the street artist lottery of May 5, 2002 in the following manner: (1) 
Obstructing Lottery Committee member Juanita Havet in the performance of her duty of 
running the lottery, and (2) obstructing the Arts Commission's lottery procedure (Arts 
Commission Lottery Rule VIII; Section 2406(a) ofOrd. 41-83). Upon conclusion of the 
Program Director's June 11th hearingjhe Program Director found "that a significant 
portion of a Lottery Committee member's performance of duty of running the lottery is 
the half hour of preparation detail prior to the lottery itself; because of the verbal 
altercation that occurred between" the Clarks "and Mrs. Havet during that time period, 
the warning for" the first charge "shall remain. " The Program Director further found, 
however, that because "the lottery procedure itself commenced on time at 9:30 a.m. ... 
the warning for" the second charge "shall be withdrawn. " 

On July 3, 2002, Robert and William Clark submitted a request for a hearing by the 
Street Artists Committee to appeal the Program Director's decision to maintain the 
warning relevant to the first charge. On August 14, 2002, the Street Artists Committee 
heard the matter and voted unanimously to recommend that the Program Director's 
decision to maintain the warning be upheld. 

On August 20, 2002, Robert and William Clark submitted a request for a rehearing 
before the Street Artists Committee "to allow new evidence to be presented which would 
clarify" a witness's "testimony. " The Program Director, citing Ordinance 291-94, 
Section 2408(b) which provides for the ordering of a rehearing when there is "new 
evidence which the Street Artist using reasonable diligence could not have obtained 
until after the hearing, " ordered a rehearing scheduled for October 9, 2002. 

III. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

IV. NEW BUSINESS 
V. ADJOURNMENT 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Committee | Meetings Index ] 
September 19, 2002 

2of2 10/04/2002 12:12 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 



Page 1 of 16 



V 



^ STREET ARTISTS COAAMITTEE 
Wednesday, October 9, 2002 

3:00 p.m. 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, San Francisco, California 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 
NOV 2 6 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notices 

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission 
office, 25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 60, San Francisco, CA 94102 during regular business hours. Tel: 
415-252-2581. 

-^ Minutes 

V"" 

Commissioners Present: Dugald Stermer, Andrew Brother Elk, Rod Freebairn-Smith, 
Denise Roth 

Commissioners Absent: Kirk Anderson 

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs; Howard Lazar, Street Artists 
Program Director;Officer Thomas Costello, S.F.P.D. 



In attendance were street artists Charles Bonney, Robert Clark, William Clark, Juanita 
Havet, Jean Havet, Adriel Quintana Loayza, Marcia Seeman; Advisory Committee 
members Mathew Porkola and Susan Tibbon; Rocio Palacoa, interpreter for Adriel 
Quintana Loayza 



Commissioner Stermer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. 



I. HEARING AND POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF 
CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml00902.htm 



1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 2 of 16 



Adriel Quintana Loayza - Certificate # 5886. Alleged violation: Selling items not 
of the artist's own creation (soldered silver-capped colored stone pendants). 

Program Director Lazar stated that Mr. Loayza is a relative newcomer to the Street 
Artists Program and is approved to sell the following: "wire, stone, bead jewelry; 
epoxy putty items (bottles, pipes, knives, etc.)". Mr. Lazar presented the artist's file 
with photos of his items taken at his examination by the Advisory Committee of 
Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners. Mr. Loayza, however, was observed on July 
27, 2002, allegedly selling items he did not make. 

Prior to the alleged violation, Mr. Loayza received two warnings from the Program 
Director against selling items not of his own creation. First of all, on May 22, 2002, 
Mr. Loayza, who at the time held his license for less than a month, was observed by 
the Program Director to be allegedly selling items not of his own creation: miniature 
glass vial pendants displayed on a manufacturer's cardboard background bearing 
printed Spanish wording, sculpted metal pendants, stone rings, and metal rings. The 
Program Director related that Mr. Loayza removed these items at the request of the 
Program Director who verbally warned him that if he displayed any of these again, he 
could lose his license for two months (the Arts Commission's standard penalty for a 
street artist selling items not of his/her own creation). When Mr. Loayza asked if he 
could "give" the questionable items to his customers, Mr. Lazar emphatically told him 
that he could not, that the street artist ordinance prohibited him from displaying 
anything other than items of his own creation which are approved by the Advisory 
Committee. The Program Director's verbal warning for this incident was followed by 
a written warning which included the statement: "Normally, selling items not of an 
artist's own creation results in the artist's certificate being withheld subject to a 
hearing; but because you are a new street artist, you are hereby being issued this 
warning. " 

Next, on July 8th, the Advisory Committee, while performing monitoring duty, 
observed Mr. Loayza allegedly selling rice grain pendants which the Committee 
members, in their notes, observed were "not on " the artist's "license. " The Program 
Director sent Mr. Loayza a second written warning, and this included the statement: 
"If you continue to sell items that are not of your own creation and/or not certified by 
the Arts Commission, your street artist certificate renewal will be withheld pending a 
hearing. " 

Today's hearing was scheduled as a result of the Advisory Committee on July 27th 
photographing other new items on Mr. Loayza's table which the Committee members 
felt he allegedly did not make: soldered silver-capped colored stone pendants. The 
Program Director presented the photographs to the Commissioners and clarified that 
the hearing was in reference only to the sale of the items observed on July 27th. He 
went on to say that even if Mr. Loayza could prove that he created the items, he had 
failed to submit them previously for examination and approval, and that, too, 
constituted a violation subject to a standard penalty of two months' suspension of 
license. 

Mr. Mathew Porkola, Chairman of the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and 
Craftsmen Examiners, acknowledged having taken the July 27th photographs of Mr. 
Loayza's display. Pointing to the silver-capped pendants in the photos, Mr. Porkola 
stated that he and co-member Susan Tibbon "spoke to him very specifically" about 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 3 of 16 



them; "we did ask to see his license; none of these types of items were on his license. 
Our usual procedure, especially with new artists, is to" issue "a more informal 
warning of what's required" rather "than to tell them that they're not allowed to 
display things that they didn't make" If the artist "did, in some way, make them," the 
Committee members would invite the artist to submit them at a screening, so that they 
could be approved and entered onto the license. In reference to Mr. Loayza, Mr. 
Porkola stated: "We probably did speak to him at least once or twice before these 
photos were taken. By the time we took these shots, I think we made it very clear to 
him that these items very specifically weren't on his license and therefore not 
allowed." 

Commissioner Stermer stated that perhaps the Program Committee should 
concentrate not on the issue of whether Mr. Loayza made the items in question but on 
the issue of whether or not he was licensed to sell them. 

The Commissioner asked Mr. Porkola if he had invited Mr. Loayza to submit the 
items for a screening. 

Mr. Porkola responded affirmatively and stated that he did not recall Mr. Loayza 
verbally responding to this nor "ever saying that he really did make these himself." 

Mr. Loayza, with the assistance of Ms. Rocio Palacoa who identified herself as his 
sister-in-law and interpreter, addressed the charge. Ms. Palacoa stated that Mr. Loayza 
did not really understand the warnings that were sent to him. In addition, his license, 
she said, included (in the area which lists the items he is allowed to sell) the word 
"etc." He thought, she said, that this allowed him to sell anything he could make. 

Program Director Lazar pointed out that the word "etc." pertained exclusively to the 
specific medium listed: "epoxy putty items (bottles, pipes, knives, etc.)". To Ms. 
Palacoa and Mr. Loayza, he stated that the word "etc." related only to the epoxy items 
and not to silver-capped pendants. 

Ms. Palacoa stated that everything Mr. Loayza sells he makes. 

Commissioner Stermer clarified that Mr. Loayza did not obtain a license to sell the 
items not listed on his license. 

In Spanish, the Program Director told Mr. Loayza that it was necessary for him to 
have the items examined by the Advisory Committee in order to receive approval to 
sell the items. 

Through Ms. Palacoa, Mr. Loayza stated that he did not receive the second written 
warning. 

Commissioner Stermer observed that there was no question about there being a 
language problem in the situation, while, at the same time, "often a language problem 
can be used as a smoke screen to keep on doing what you want to do." But, upon 
examining the photos of the incident and the photos taken at Mr. Loayza's 
examination, the items in question were "a close call" in similarity to the items 
approved at the examination. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 4 of 16 



The Commissioner asked Ms. Palacoa to convey to Mr. Loayza that he could sell only 
items that are examined and approved. She interpreted this to him. 

Commissioner Roth asked Ms. Palacoa to convey to Mr. Loayza that he could 
continue to sell the items for which he has already been approved, but that he could 
not sell the items in question until they are examined and approved. 

Program Director Lazar asked Ms. Palacoa to convey to Mr. Loayza that he contact 
the Program's Certification Clerk Antoinette Worthy tomorrow to make arrangements 
to submit his items at the upcoming examination of October 3 1 st. She interpreted this 
to him. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith moved that the charge against Mr. Loayza be 
dismissed, that Mr. Loayza be urged to make arrangements to submit the items in 
question and any new item for examination and approval, and that he be warned 
against selling any new item until it is examined and approved; the motion was 
seconded by Commissioner Brother Elk and unanimously approved. 

In response to a question from Ms. Palacoa of whether Mr. Loayza could sell any 
different models of his craft, Commissioner Stermer stated that he could do so only if 
it is examined and approved. 

Ms. Palacoa confirmed that Mr. Loayza had to appear before the Advisory Committee 
on October 31st. 

REHEARING TO APPEAL PROGRAM DIRECTORS DECISION TO 
MAINTAIN WARNING; POSSIBLE MOTION TO WITHDRAW STREET 
ARTISTS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO MAINTAIN WARNING; 
POSSIBLE MOTION TO WITHDRAW PROGRAM DIRECTOR WARNING 

Robert Clark - Certificate #2753; William Clark - Certificate #2735. Rehearing 
and possible motion to withdraw August 14, 2002 Street Artists Committee 
recommendation to maintain warning; and possible motion to approve request by 
Robert Clark and William Clark that warning issued by Program Director be 
withdrawn. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that he read the Program Director's notes on the City 
Attorney's verbal advice that the rehearing be granted and that another forty-five 
minutes at most, if necessary, was sufficient. The Commissioner observed that the 
Commission (staff and Commissioners) had already given more than an hour in 
hearing the matter. 

Program Director Lazar stated that, by ordinance, he is authorized to grant a rehearing 
when there is "new evidence which the Street Artist using reasonable diligence could 
not have obtained until after the hearing." In the present matter, the new evidence 
which was submitted to him was a videotape of witness Charles Bonney, who was not 
at the previous Street Artists Committee hearing, responding to questions by William 
Clark. The Program Director had set up the Commission's VCR and TV monitor for 
today's hearing only to find that the VCR was broken and would not play the 
videotape. However, the witness himself was present and could again respond to Mr. 
Clark's questions, as well as to those submitted by the Commissioners and the 
Program Director. 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 5 of 16 



The Program Director clarified that Mr. Bonney was the only witness he found who 
saw the entire incident from beginning to end. This was the reason for the Program 
Director's decision to not produce witnesses who had observed only pieces of the 
incident. 

Street Artist William Clark thanked the Commissioners for allowing the rehearing. 
The reason for the rehearing, he said, was because witness Charles Bonney had been 
on his way to the previous hearing when he had a flat tire, and went back to his house 
to be available to give his testimony by telephone; but the Program's Certification 
Clerk, Mr. Clark said, "didn't really relate that to us properly; she thought he was still 
on his way here, and that's why we were waiting for him." After the hearing, Mr. 
Clark on video asked Mr. Bonney to state whether or not he had telephoned the 
Program. 

To this, Commissioner Stermer stated: "We'll stipulate." 

Another reason for requesting the rehearing, Mr. Clark said, was to address the 
credibility of Mr. Bonney's letter describing the incident - specifically, "whether or 
not" Mr. Clark "used the term 'f— ing b~ch' towards Juanita, and he" (Mr. Bonney) 
"had written in his letter that" Mr. Clark "had" done so. Mr. Clark wished to ask, 
through the chair, Mr. Bonney "to state what he had stated in the video, whether or 
not he actually heard me ever use the term 'f— ing b~ch' towards Juanita, and where 
he heard that term." 

Mr. Bonney responded: "No, I didn't hear him say that. I heard the husband" (Jean 
Havet) "say that when he confronted Bill with that. And so that's how I got it. I was 
trying to ignore what was going on ... He actually ... said 'stupid b— ch'. I thought he 
said 'f— ing b~ch" because that's what the husband confronted him with." 

Mr. Clark stated that he admitted using the term "stupid b~ch." He went on to say 
that Ms. Havet's statements were that both he and his brother "on numerous occasions 
stated several times ...'f— ing b~ch' at her, which I deny." He wanted to ask Mr. 
Bonney if he heard Mr. Clark use the term "b~ch" toward Ms. Havet. 

Mr. Bonney stated that he "was trying to ignore" the incident. 

Mr. Clark stated that he wished to point out two things. First, a definition from 
Webster's Dictionary of the word "bitch" which states "a malicious, spiteful, and 
domineering woman " ; Mr. Clark stated, "I thought at the time that was exactly what 
she" (Ms. Havet) was." 

Secondly, Mr. Clark asked the Commissioners whether the rehearing constituted a 
hearing di nova or whether or not certain aspects could be discussed; if it was a 
hearing di nova, he would have to present all of the evidence he presented previously. 

Commissioner Stermer responded that Mr. Clark did not have to do that. 

Mr. Clark asked Mr. Bonney "whether or not, when the incident occurred ... what 
actually ... happened. ... I'd like to ask you: Who started the argument? Did Juanita 
start yelling at me? At my brother? ..." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml00902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 6 of 16 



Mr. Bonney responded: "What instigated it was I asked Juanita if she needed a helper 
for the day, and she said 'no' ...'Did you burn your number?' And I said, 'Yeah, I used 
it yesterday.' 'Well, you can't be helper.' I said 'I'm fine, I'm fine with that.' I'm sitting 
there, and I talked to Bob" (Robert Clark) "and Bob was saying, well, you know, he 
was telling her the new rule that she wasn't aware of, that you could be" a helper "if 
they couldn't get another helper, or something like that. And as Bob was talking to 
me, she looked at Bob and she said, 'Don't encourage him.' And I think that kind of 
thing is used a lot by people who are trying to control the people from, you know, 
getting out ahead. So she was real curt and kind of rude ... And so it kind of got Bob 
going, and Bob shot another question at her ... a retort, saying 'Well, it is in the rule 
book.' And she kept back ... like she was trying to quiet him ..." 

Mr. Clark asked Mr. Bonney if he recalled, when Mr. Clark went to the lottery sign- 
up table, Ms. Havet yelling at him "to 'get a life' and to 'get the hell out of here'?" 

Mr. Bonney responded affirmatively and stated that "it looked to me like the brothers 
were trying to discover what really was going on. And Juanita was just trying to get 
them to butt out; she wanted to take care of this business at hand. She was using the 
wrong tack with them because she would say to them, like, 'Where's Eddy's petition? 
I want to sign it!' ... Eddy was trying to pass a petition that would take out some of the 
ruling they were trying to get. And she says, 'Why don't you guys work on the 
lottery? I never see you do anything around here.' ... And actually this is their baby ... 
I just thought that if she wouldn't alienate them, continually alienate them, they would 
just ... forget it. So it just went on that way. She'd tell them to shut up .... and get a 
life. And that is their life." 

Mr. Clark asked Mr. Bonney if he remembered Mr. Clark asking Ms. Havet "to end 
it" and whether he remembered Mr. Clark asking both Ms. Havet and his brother to 
end it." 

Mr. Bonney responded affirmatively and stated: "It was said ... you wanted to stop." 

Mr. Clark asked him if he recalled where Mr. Clark was sitting and whether he was 
having a conversation with Mr. Bonney or completely away from him. 

Mr. Bonney responded: I walked over, and I was over to the side. I tried to distance 
myself ... I didn't want to get into an argument." He went on to respond that Mr. Clark 
was sitting several feet away from him, was by himself, and was not talking to Mr. 
Bonney or to Ms. Havet. 

Mr. Clark stated that these were all the questions he had "immediately." He went on 
to state that he believed that Mr. Bonney's initial letter as well as Jean Havet's letter 
and the statement by several artists attached to Juanita Havet's letter, and which was 
discussed at the previous hearing, "should be thrown out." He went on to say that he 
never received a copy prior to the (Program Director's) hearing; "I had no way of 
knowing what any of these people had said ... Had I known some of these things, I 
would have addressed them at the initial hearing. I believe that you cannot rely on 
this as evidence." At the previous hearing, he said, Commissioner Roth stated that the 
statement of the artists supported Juanita's statement that Mr. Clark called her a "f— 
ing b~ch"; Mr. Clark said that he did not feel their statement supports Ms. Havet's 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 7 of 16 



contention because "they just made the remark that they 'witnessed the Clark brothers 
yelling and swearing at her'." 

Commissioner Roth stated: "You've had two months now to go over" the written 
statement, "so can you address it now?" 

Mr. Clark stated that several of the statements made by Ms. Havet on the first page of 
her letter were false, "that we approached her, that we yelled numerous times, she 
stated that we continued yelling twenty minutes, she made statements that the lottery 
did not go on even at 9:30, which that charge was dismissed because it was proven 
that it did occur. The argument stopped at approximately twenty after which also in 
Jean Marie's initial letter he states that he approached the lottery table at twenty 
after." Mr. Clark went on to say that Ms. Havet's letter states that the Clarks did a " 
'tag team' yelling continually for twenty minutes, she was totally stopped from 
running the lottery; she made statements that we used the term 'f— ing b--ch' 
numerous times; it says here 'I was harassed, screamed at and called names to the 
tune of "f***ing bitch" many times' ..." Mr. Clark stated that, other than her 
testimony, that that was the accurate wording used." 

Mr. Clark addressed Jean Havet's statement that he, Mr. Clark had called Ms. Havet a 
"f— ing b— ch". Mr. Clark stated that "if he recalls, when he came up to me, to the 
table, my brother and I walked away with him, at which point in time I explained to 
him ... that I had called her a 'stupid b— ch' and he said that he was going to have to go 
talk to several other people who were witnesses to find out whether what I was saying 
was accurate. ... He couldn't just take my word for it, he would go talk to the other 
people to find out the truth of the story. ... Now if, as he claims, I told him at that 
point that I called her a 'f— ing b~ch', why would it be necessary for him to go and 
talk to other people to find out that that was what I called her? ... My point being: if 
he is so offended by me using that term at that time, then there would be no reason for 
him to go seek other people's information; and that I never said that to him - it's his 
word against mine ... I deliberately told him that I called her a 'stupid b~ch' at the 
time, because I wanted to make him aware that there was a hostile" situation. 

Commissioner Stermer stated that wording issue had to be put to rest; "as you said, 
it's your word against his" and Mr. Havet was not a witness to the wording used. 

Mr. Clark continued by pointing out that, at the previous hearing, Ms. Havet testified 
that the purpose of her filing the complaint "was to exact an apology from me, not 
because that I disrupted her duty ... She and her husband both testified that the reason 
why they did this was to exact an apology from me, and I feel that that impeaches 
both their testimony as to the real reason why this complaint" was filed. "I have the 
First Amendment right to make any statement towards any person, whether it's a staff 
member or not, that they may find offensive. There is no written City Attorney 
opinion stating that I can be punished for making an offensive remark towards a staff 
person, and that an oral statement by the City Attorney to Howard" (Program Director 
Lazar) "that I can be brought up on charges for an offensive statement is also hearsay; 
there's no written statement from the City Attorney's office ..." 

Mr. Clark added that "one last thing" he wished to say was that "I agree that it isn't 
important - this thing seems petty - because ... my license isn't being suspended or 
revoked or anything like that ...you made the comment that I'm not being punished, so 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 8 of 16 



I should not take this so harshly. But I want to remind the Commission that ... even 
suspensions and revocations are not for the purpose of punishing the license holder, 
but it's for the purpose of protecting the public of unsavory characters or people of ill 
repute who are in the occupations ... So ... even if you were suspending my license, 
that technically and legally it's not to punish me ... " He invited the Commissioners to 
ask Mr. Bonney questions because "I think he can explain exactly what kind of - as 
Howard said - acrimony developed, and I feel that his testimony proves that not only 
did she start it, which was unfortunate ... but that she prolonged it by abusive 
remarks ... and ridiculing remarks that were made to me and my brother; and if there's 
any disruption of her official duty, that it was a direct result of her statements." 

Commissioner Roth asked Mr. Bonney to clarify his remark about Ms. Havet's 
"trying to get the Clarks out of it so that she could finish her work." 

Mr. Bonney responded that that was "the impression I got; she was there to do her 
job, and she was ... being curt, and she had that attitude before." 

Commissioner Roth asked him if Ms. Havet was "doing anything at the time, or was 
she standing there doing nothing." 

Mr. Bonney responded: "Trying to get the helper." 

Commissioner Roth stated: "So she was actually doing something at the time," to 
which Mr. Bonney affirmed: "Yeah." 

Commissioner Roth asked him how long the argument lasted. 

Mr. Bonney responded: "I can only say ... approximate ten to fifteen minutes." 

Program Director Lazar stated that, at the previous hearing, "from 9:10 to 9:30, Bill 
and Bob Clark's point was that there was nothing for her to do ... and my 
understanding of their point was that even if there was an argument between them, it 
was okay because they weren't interfering with her duties from 9:10 to 9:30. ..." 

Mr. Lazar, through the chair, asked Mr. Bonney: "What would you have to say about 
that?" 

Mr. Bonney responded: "Well, if you're the chairman, your duty is to observe and 
correct anything ... When you're in charge, you're supposed to be supervising the 
lottery." 

Mr. Lazar stated to Mr. Bonney: "You have described her curt attitude as incensing a 
response from the Clarks; but can you also discuss their part in this?" 

Mr. Bonney responded: "She would say something to them, and they have an answer 
for her ... In other words, it was an argument. It was two people ... two sides ... both 
having their dander up." 

Commissioner Stermer asked: "But one side had a job to do, correct?" 

Mr. Bonney responded: "Right." 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml00902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 9 of 16 

Commissioner Stermer: "And was pursuing that job?" 

Mr. Bonney: "Correct." 

Commissioner Stermer: "And you're not exactly unbiased in this, are you? She had 
already turned you down and said ... you can't help ..." 

Mr. Bonney: "Didn't hurt my feelings. I wouldn't call it biased. I work in the Street 
Artists Program ... It was an argument, and I'm saying both sides were arguing ... I 
tried to stay completely out of the argument by walking ... away and staying over 
there ..." 

Mr. Lazar asked Mr. Bonney: "Could the Clarks have walked away?" 

Mr. Bonney responded: "Sure." 

Commissioner Roth asked: "Could she have walked away?" 

Mr. Bonney responded: "No." 

Mr. Lazar asked him why Ms. Havet could not have done so. 

Mr. Bonney stated: "She was working behind the table." 

Mr. Clark asked for permission to object to certain statements. "I object to his 
opinions about things that are totally irrelevant ..." 

Commissioner Stermer stated: "He's your witness." 

Mr. Clark stated that he was objecting to the Commissioners' asking Mr. Bonney 
"questions of opinion and expertise that have nothing to do with what he saw ... In 
regards to his statement of whether or not she has a duty to do something, he's not an 
expert. He has no information on that. My testimony was that - and I presented the 
bluebook" (the Street Artists Program's handbook of rules) "to you that states that 
there is nothing for her to do. You can only ask him questions as to what he saw ..." 

Commissioner Stermer asked Mr. Bonney: "Did you see her working?" 

Mr. Bonney responded: "Sure." 

Street Artist Robert Clark asked permission to question, through the chair, Mr. 
Bonney. 

Mr. Robert Clark asked Mr. Bonney: "When this incident occurred, Charles, how far 
away were you and I from Juanita?" 

Mr. Bonney responded that it was roughly fifteen feet. 

Mr. Clark asked: "So me and you were having a private conversation, correct?" to 
which Mr. Bonney replied: "Correct." 

http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 10 of 16 



Mr. Clark: "I wasn't talking to Juanita, and Juanita wasn't talking to me; I was talking 
to you personally." 

Mr. Bonney: "Right." 

Mr. Clark: "And who spoke to whom first? Did I speak to Juanita first, or did she 
speak to me first?" 

Mr. Bonney: "No, Juanita looked at you and said 'Don't encourage him!' " 

Mr. Clark: "And then did I turn around to her and try to explain to her what -" 

Mr. Bonney: "You turned around and tried to explain what you were trying to tell 
me." 

Mr. Clark: "And then what did she do?" 

Mr. Bonney: "She snapped at you again." 

Mr. Clark: "And did I again try to explain to her what I was doing?" 

Mr. Bonney: "Yes." 

Mr. Clark: "So that while she was in the process of quote working, all I was doing 
was trying to explain to her what I was attempting to do. Is that correct?" 

Mr. Bonney: "Correct." 

Mr. Clark: "Did I ever walk over to that table during that time and get in her face or 
curse at her or scream at her - do anything like that?" 

Mr. Bonney: "No ... It was later on when -" 

Mr. Clark: "So when the argument first occurred, we were at least fifteen feet away." 

Mr. Bonney: "Right." 

Mr. Clark: "And my brother at that time, was he near Juanita?" 

Mr. Bonney: "No." 

Mr. Clark: "So when this argument occurred, we didn't do anything to stop her from 
doing her work. Would you say that's correct?" 

Mr. Bonney: "At the beginning, yeah." 

Mr. Clark: "And when would you say was the first time that she and us got close 
together?" 

Mr. Bonney: "After the argument got rolling ... then I walked away, and you guys got 
http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/sam 1 00902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 1 1 of 16 



into an argument." 

Mr. Clark: "Could you remember approximately when this argument occurred? 
Before the sign-in?" 

Mr. Bonney: "The time it started was about the time you were supposed to be 
picked ... supposed to have a helper, which had to be 9:10." 

Mr. Clark: "Then approximately at 9:10 did you see my brother walk over towards 
her?" 

Mr. Bonney: "I think it was a little later." 

Mr. Clark: "Later did you see the reason why he walked over there?" 

Mr. Bonney: "I think he wanted to give her his number." 

Mr. Clark: "Did you see him try to give her his number?" 

Mr. Bonney: Yeah. She wouldn't take it." 

Mr. Clark: "Did Bill try to give it to her again?" 

Mr. Bonney: "Yeah. She took it." 

Mr. Clark: "So what you're saying is the first time that Bill approached her was to 
hand in his blue slip." 

Mr. Bonney: "Right." 

Mr. Clark: "It wasn't to have an argument; it wasn't to do anything. ... Was it at that 
time when she told him to get a life, to get lost?" 

Mr. Bonney: "Yeah." 

Mr. Clark: "In the other hearing, you made a statement that you felt that if Juanita 
hadn't continued to make these statements, then the whole incident would have been 
ended. Do you still have that opinion?" 

Mr. Bonney: "In my opinion, those were inflammatory statements and it egged you 
guys on. If she had just said 'I'm not gonna argue, I'm not gonna call any names, I'm 
not going to do anything', I think you guys would have subsided. 

Mr. Clark: "My last question: Did you see her actually be stopped in performing any 
duty?" 

Mr. Bonney: "While she was engaged with you two , and therefore she was not 
observing what was taking place in the lottery ." 

Mr. Clark: "This was approximately a quarter after nine?" 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 12 of 16 



Mr. Bonney: "A quarter after nine. ... She got her helper." 

Mr. Clark: "... A quarter after nine, and all you saw her doing was having the 
argument with us then." 

Mr. Bonney: "Right." 

Mr. Clark: "You didn't see her actually perform any other duties or attempting to 
perform any other duties?" 

Mr. Bonney: "No. Because she was engaged with you two." 

Program Director Lazar asked Mr. Bonney to describe "Bill and Bob Clark's 
contribution to the argument. How were their mannerisms?" 

Mr. Bonney: "Well, they were like they were offended. I mean, if somebody told you 
'Why don't you run the lottery', and you've been in the Program and you wrote the 
lottery, and you've been in the Program for thirty years, you'd be offended as well. 
They were like defending that they do help; they were on the defensive ..." 

Mr. Lazar: "Were they loud and vocal?" 

Mr. Bonney: "Yeah, pretty loud. It was an argument. Not superheated ... but a lot of 
words were exchanged." 

Mr. Lazar: "But you felt that that was keeping her from what she could have been 
doing which was observing." 

Mr. Bonney: "Right." 

Mr. Lazar: "While she wasn't physically doing a task of writing anything, it was still 
enough of a distraction to keep her from her duty of monitoring." 

Mr. Bonney: "That's right." 

Commissioner Stermer called on Street Artist Juanita Havet to speak. 

Ms. Havet stated: "I'm sorry you have to go through this all over again. I'm sorry I 
have to go through this all again. It really doesn't matter if they call me a 'f— ing b~ 
ch' ten times or if they call me a 'stupid b--ch' ten times; it's the same thing. A b— ch is 
a b— ch is a b~ch. That's what they kept calling me over and over again in an 
extremely heated tone of voice. ... That doesn't really matter. The point is I went there 
to run a lottery. I had to run the lottery. When they read out of the bluebook what my 
duties are, this is ridiculous. A lottery person has a lot of work to do between 9:10 
and 9:30. A lot of work to do. Especially on a Sunday. Sunday 9:30 lottery sign-up. 
Everybody sleeps in; everybody comes late. Everybody loses their lottery slip; you've 
got to make duplicates. Everybody comes at 9:25, throws about a hundred numbers 
in; you have to put in or you have to help the helper to put them in order, to mark 
them off on the numbers-used sheet. You have to assign the Downtown and the 
Wharf helpers their spots. You have to assign yourself a spot. You have to fill out 
sheets, date them, number them; you have to do a lot of busy work, okay? It's not like 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml00902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 13 of 16 



digging ditches, but it's a lot of busy work. It's a lot of little details so you can run an 
organized lottery. And the organized lottery sign-up starts at 9:30." 

Ms. Havet went on to say that "the reason I was able to start at 9:30 is because a lot of 
people pitched in to help the helper, to pick up my slack, to pick up the load that I 
was supposed to be carrying but I couldn't because I was in a screaming argument 
with these two. ... And I didn't want an argument with these two. I didn't even know 
what it was about. I didn't even know that I insulted them by saying 'Don't encourage 
him'. What I meant ...when I said 'Don't encourage him' is he's out of the running to 
be helper; that's all I meant. He's out of the running, Charles is a relatively new street 
artist, he really was a little unsure of the rules, the way things work - 1 knew this 
because I've been on the Committee a long time. Thirteen years I've been on the 
Lottery Committee running lotteries." 

Ms. Havet addressed the issue of filing the complaint: "I don't make it a point to come 
up here and complain about street artists and make written complaints about street 
artists. I just want to go run a lottery and go to work. And it's a lot of work ... to run a 
lottery. And you have to put up with a lot of abuse. And my point coming here was 
not to get an apology. I don't care if they apologize to me because I know they won't 
mean it. ... That's not why I came here. I came here because lottery people should not 
have to be subjected to this kind of treatment by street artists." 

Ms. Havet went on to say: "I couldn't walk away. I could not walk away from the 
lottery. I had to stand there and do it. I stood there and did it with my blood pressure 
about forty points up, and tears, and rubbing my eyes because I was crying; and I did 
the damn lottery. But I did it because other people helped me. Other lottery people 
came and offered to do it for me. Other street artists came and helped the helper. You 
don't stand there and twiddle your thumbs between 9:10 and 9:30 - that's ridiculous! 
It's just a ridiculous idea that you don't have any work to do. That's what I'm here to 
say." 

Commissioner Stermer called on Street Artist Jean Havet to speak. 

Mr. Havet stated that his wife "could finish it because I took " the Clark brothers 
away from the argument and asked them "to tell me what happened. Because I was 
sipping coffee in my car when all this happened. And I saw them assaulting the table, 
one after the other. When I was walking down the sidewalk, I saw them ... and I said 
'Well, the Clark brothers, they're at it again. I had no idea it was" involving his wife. 
"I saw one coming like this ... to the table and go back; the other one would go in the 
front and would attack ... again and go back. Then the first one ... Like a pack of dogs. 
And then I went there, and then I realized it was her. So I took them aside" and asked 
them to explain the situation." 

Mr. Havet went on to relate that what was conveyed to him was not something out of 
the ordinary, as if "it happened every day ... So I said 'Okay, well, let's just forget 
about it. Until William told me, 'Oh, by the way, I called her a "f— ing b~ch".' " Mr. 
Havet then saw Juanita crying; "she was all bent out of shape. So I went around ... to 
ask somebody else what happened because I wanted it not only from" the Clarks' 
"point of view but I wanted to know what the other people" saw. "There was a lot of 
people there. Eddy" (Steneck) "was there, and he is the one who consoled my wife 
while I was talking to them. And that's when I knew they were really wrong. I knew 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 14 of 16 



that they had abused her. Two guys against one woman: to me, even if they were in 
the right, that's not right." 

Mr. Havet further related that he went back to speak to the Clarks. William was not 
there. So he told Robert that his brother and he would have to apologize to Juanita; 
otherwise, he would press charges against them. Robert told him that he could not 
make a decision for his brother. 

Mr. William Clark asked to rebut a statement made by Mr. Havet. "I just want to 
point out to you, as I wrote in my letter ... that toward the end of the argument, a 
street artist, Matt, started cursing at me and my brother, and I walked over towards 
Matt and told him to stay out of it and then backed up, and my brother walked over to 
Matt and told him to do that - and that's what Jean-Marie saw when he saw us 
entering into the crowd and backing up and entering. It wasn't anything directed 
towards her. And that we walked away. And he did not pull us over to him. My 
brother and I pulled him over to us and said that we wanted to talk to him ..." 

Mr. Clark went on in rebuttal: "In regards to Juanita's statement, I'm sorry, there was 
no testimony by any people whatsoever, other than her, that they helped her get the 
lottery on time. All we have is her statement; it's all hearsay; there's no witnesses to 
support her; and we've already proven in several of her statements that she's 
untruthful." 

Mr. Robert Clark, through the chair, asked Ms. Havet "to give the name of any 
person" who offered to help her with the lottery. 

Ms. Havet responded: "Pipe Lady offered to do the lottery for me. She offered 
because she saw how upset I was. And Eaiko was helping ..." 

Program Director Lazar clarified: " 'Pipe Lady' is Susan Pete. She makes pipes. And 
'Eaiko' is Eaiko Chou Chang." 

Mr. Clark questioned: "Is Pipe Lady here to testify that she took over her job and had 
to do all this work? ... That's hearsay evidence." 

Commissioner Stermer, upon ascertaining that there was no further testimony, 
clarified that a motion by his Committee would be necessary to overrule or remove 
the warning issued to the Clarks. 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith expressed his thanks to all the parties for maintaining 
a balanced well-tempered hearing today. "Everyone did well. ... I think it's helped me 
sense the situation that comes at the focus of one of our most important activities in 
the Program. Otherwise, I sense it wouldn't be here at all; it's something rather 
personal. But the fact that it impacted the efficacy of the lottery matters to us. There is 
a lot of other material here that I don't feel, as an Arts Commissioner, is really my 
charge to be dealing with. But I am very concerned about the Program. And events of 
this kind, it makes me, as an administrative person, want to speculate on how we can 
improve the lottery so that this couldn't happen again. But that's not what we're here 
to discuss." 

Commissioner Roth expressed her thanks to Mr. Bonney 'for taking time out to come 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 15 of 16 



down here as the only full witness to the whole thing." 

Commissioner Brother Elk stated that he agreed with Commissioners Roth and 
Freebairn-Smith. 

Commissioner Stermer commented that "when something sort of half way breaks 
down once, we don't have to re-create the wheel. We haven't seen this happen ... The 
lottery runs pretty smoothly most all of the time. Nothing like this has ever come in 
front of me since I've been on this Committee. ..." 

Commissioner Freebairn-Smith commented that the Committee has heard personal 
problems. 

Commissioner Stermer agreed and stated: "I think any time you deal with artists and 
artisans, you're going to have some passion involved." With respect to the present 
case, the Commissioner stated: "I've heard nothing that causes me to want to overturn 
the warning." 

2. REPORT BY PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

Program Director Lazar reported that he had received written communication from 
Street Artist William Clark requesting certain amendments to the minutes of the 
previous (August) meeting of the Street Artists Committee. Mr. Lazar apologized for 
not forwarding copies of Mr. Clark's request prior to today's hearing. Copies were 
now given to the Commissioners, and Mr. Lazar asked that they consider the 
proposed amendments for a possible vote of approval at the next meeting. 

The Program Director further reported that he submitted the Arts Commission's 
legislation to the Board of Supervisors for designation of 57 temporary winter holiday 
spaces in the Downtown area and 7 at Harvey Milk Plaza. 

The Program Director also reported on the success of the off-duty Police officers 
hired by the Street Artists Program for several days in August and September in 
citing unlicensed vendors along Market Street and booking and trucking away a high 
volume of their illegal merchandise. The Program Director commented that the size 
of some of the illegal table displays "was egregious" - for example, 70 feet of 
continuous tables on the sidewalk of 388 Market Street. "The police did an excellent 
job", so much so that "I heard from some of our street artists that the illegals 
hightailed it to the Financial District - where we don't have street artist spaces." For 
the Street Artists Program, "it was well worth the cost." The Program will hire 
officers again for the winter-holiday season, as it has done so for the past ten years. 

The Program Director reported that he commenced working on the assignment 
requested by the Commissioners and the artists of surveying the length of Jefferson 
Street and proposing additional street artist spaces. He is presently working with three 
street artists (Oscar Bevilacqua, Kathleen Hallinan, Robert Siu) on the project. 
Detailed drawings of proposed spaces per block will be submitted to the Street Artists 
Committee. 

3 NEW BUSINESS 



http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml00902.htm 11/26/2003 



SFAC | Street Artists Program Committee | October 9,2002 Page 16 of 16 



Street Artist Marcia Seeman stated that she has known Juanita Havet and William and 
Robert Clark for a long time, "and all I see on this Committee, especially two specific 
people, is a bias towards the Clarks." She went on to say that, through the years, she 
has witnessed the Clarks trying to help other artists "in their own kind, quirky way, 
trying to enlighten and edify people who are new to the Program. And all I see is 
misunderstanding on so many levels ... and from what I understand here is that the 
Clarks were saying something, and Charles was trying to say something ... It's so 
confusing; everyone's using their own language. ... There's no one backing the Clarks, 
and the Clarks are trying to defend themselves." 

Commissioner Roth responded that, perhaps, Ms. Seeman "should attend more than 
one meeting because ... we have a very long relationship with the Clarks that, frankly, 
has been very, very positive." 

Ms. Seeman discussed the Clarks' attempt to help Charles Bonney and being 
misunderstood with bias toward them. 

Commissioner Stermer responded that "obviously, Juanita felt differently, and 
obviously the evidence came in and Howard felt differently and felt that even if their 
motive was to help somebody in the beginning, it escalated into a full-scale 
disruption. And that's all we were asked to adjudicate - a full-scale disruption - and 
that's what we did." 

Program Director Lazar stated, "for the record, this Committee faced off against 
overwhelming evidence against the last proposal of the Clarks. ... The Clarks were 
asking" for a rule to allow "people to call in names of people who could not be at the 
lottery" to allow them to participate; "that was a most unpopular proposal. There was 
a petition presented to this Committee of over a hundred signatures against it. And 
this Committee, out of respect to the Clarks and faith in their ability to see what 
would be good for the Program, faced off " a roomful of "vocal people against the 
proposal. They faced off against them and voted for the proposal. ...So when you talk 
about 'bias', I want you to know that they went out on a limb" for the Clarks and their 
proposal. "To this day, I receive rancor from the street as to how this Committee 
could do that in the face of a petition." 

Ms. Seeman stated that "it's genuine that they try to help. Period." 



The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 
Respectfully submitted: 



Howard Lazar 

Street Artists Program Director 



[ ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION | Street Artists Comm ittee | Meetings Index ] 
October 17, 2002 

http://sfac.sfsu.edu/meetings/minutes/2002/st_arts/saml 00902.htm 1 1 /26/2003 






F 
P. 75 




)AN FRANCISCO 



ARTS COMMISSION 



Richard Newirth 
Director, of Cultural Affairs 



PROGRAMS 

Civic Design Review 

Performing Arts 

Public Art 

Suite 240 

Community Arts 

&. Education 

Cultural Equity Grants 

Street Artists Licenses 

Suite 60 

Civic Art Collection 
Suite 70 

Arts Commission Gallery 

401 Van Ness Avenue 

415.554.6080 



http://SFACSFSU.EDU 



EMAIL: 
ARTSCOMM1SS10N@SFGOV.ORG 



* 



NOTICE 



The meetings of the STREET ARTISTS PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
scheduled for Wednesday November 13, 2002 and for Wednesday, 
December 11, 2002 have been cancelled. 

The next meeting of the Street Artists Program Committee is 
scheduled for Wednesday, January 8, 2003 at 3:00 p.m. in the Arts 
Commission's Conference Room, Suite 70, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San 
Francisco. 




City and County of 
San Francisco 



Street Artists Program 
October 30, 2002 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 
NOV 2 1 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



25 Van Ness Ave. Suite 240, San Francisco. CA. 94102 tel. 415.252.2590 fax 415.252.2595 









67012* 



it HOUCHEN ^ 
^ BINDERY LTD . 

-vUTICA/OMAHANE. * 

2005 *